1951-12-27

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps
the best time for me to raise this question is at this point. Having regard to the fact that we now meet in this rather unusual period of the year for a session of parliament, I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when we may expect reports from those ministers who have been abroad for the past three months on various important matters of government business.
I believe that before this session ends we should have a report from each of those ministers on the subject matter that was under discussion at the time they were abroad.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: It is necessary for some of those
ministers who have been abroad to return there, and I understand that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) left this morning for Korea. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is to leave on January 12 or 13 for a continuation of the meetings in London, and I do not know whether there will be an opportunity for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to make a report on what took place at the conference in Rome. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is not here this morning, and I understand he is otherwise engaged on matters that are not of international importance. As soon as he returns there may be an opportunity for a report in addition to that which he has already made in the house.
Of course, these matters are of great interest but for the last few sittings of the house we have been dealing with a matter of domestic concern which is also of great interest, and which is to be the topic of further discussion in the house this morning. I would hope that we could go on with that domestic matter without in any way slighting the international negotiations on which my colleagues have recently been engaged.


George Alexander Drew: Without extending the discussion of this subject unduly, I would
point out that while it is true we have before us a matter of extremely important domestic concern, the practice has been established of informing the house, prior to the orders of the day, about matters directly affecting particular departments where the minister has some report to make to the house, and through the house to the press and people of Canada. It does seem to me that the very fact that the Minister of National Defence left this morning suggests reasons why it would be desirable to give the house some assurance that we shall have reports from these ministers concerning the extremely important subjects they were discussing while abroad. Naturally, all of us will be pleased that the Minister of National Defence will be visiting the Canadian troops in Korea. I would point out, however, that it is a year and a half since that military operation began, and a matter of a few days might not substantially change the importance of the visit. I would have hoped that he would give us a report relating to the discussion on NATO which will be before us, and it was for that reason I asked that information be given.
Without asking for any further commitment from the Prime Minister, I would ask that consideration be given to setting aside some time which would not affect the discussion of domestic matters, when reports from these ministers could be received.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Without making any
further commitment I shall repeat the commitment I have always made, that any decision arrived at will be immediately communicated to the house.



NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform
the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the chief electoral officer certificate of the election and return of the following member:
Of Carl Olof Nickle, Esquire, for the electoral district of Calgary West.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: I should like
to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the government aware of the serious
2382	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry unemployment situation in the textile industry? If so, what measures are being taken to counteract this situation?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: To reply to the first part of the question, the government is aware of the unemployment situation referred to. Just before Christmas I met a delegation dealing with this matter. As to the second part of the question, the situation will be considered by the government, and any decision reached will be announced in due course.
(Translation):



FERRY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) in connection with the unfortunate accident that happened at Tadoussac on December 23 last. Has the hon. minister been requested to improve the ferry service following that accident and does his department intend to investigate the circumstances of that accident?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The hon. member kindly sent me
a copy of his question but, unfortunately, I received it only a few minutes before coming into the chamber. However, after reading it, I am inclined to believe that the federal government has no responsibility, direct or indirect, in the operation, of the ferry between Baie Ste. Catherine and Tadoussac.
As far as the Department of Transport is concerned and I say this only from memory -it provides no grant either through the maritime commission or any other division for the maintenance of the wharf. Therefore we would not be prepared to hold an investigation. I give this answer without having secured the necessary information. I am rather inclined to believe that this ferry is not under federal jurisdiction.
(Text):



REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON CEASE-FIRE NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Is he able to inform us as to the
[iMr. Blair.]

developments in connection with the ceasefire negotiations in Korea, which terminated at ten o'clock this morning, our time, unless any further arrangements have been made?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will have inquiries made at the Department of External Affairs. I have not personally received any information as to what took place at the appointed hour for the expiry of the delay which had been set.



CANADIAN MISSIONARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: In the
absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government any idea of the number of Canadian missionaries remaining in China, and has it any special policy with regard to their repatriation? In The Ensign for December 29 there is a story about Bishop Kenneth Turner and three priests, one of whom comes from Newfoundland, and three sisters who have been reported as being held in severe captivity at the present time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will inquire as to what is the latest information we have officially in that regard. I can only add that we all share the concern and the anxiety of the hon. member over the fate of those who went to the Far East to give their lives in the service of their fellow men and who seem to be exposed to such serious difficulties at the present time.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, December 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson for the second reading of Bill No. 36, to amend the Combines Investigation Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell, and the amendment to the amendment of Mrs. Fairclough.
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned on Friday evening I was making a few observations particularly in reference to the amendment submitted by the members of this party. Since that time we have, of course, had the opportunity of spending a few days at home and have come in contact, to a greater or lesser extent, with certain parts of the constituencies which we represent. On Monday I

took advantage of the opportunity to do some Christmas shopping, but I am afraid that I was not too successful in this regard because it seems that the discussion which took place just prior.to the adjournment of the house-


Mr. Casselman:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It seems that the discussion just prior to the adjournment of this house on the bill now before us has stirred up a lively interest in its subject matter and' its import. In every store I entered to do business, the storekeeper wanted to discuss the lights and shades of this extremely contentious piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Arza Clair Casselman: Hold the cabinet meeting outside the chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think that it is almost impossible for Hansard to hear what the hon. member is saying, and would therefore ask hon. members not to converse in the chamber.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Obviously-and this is the point that we have been endeavouring to bring out amidst a rather difficult atmosphere for debating; and it is even more difficult this morning, unfortunately-the interest of the retail merchant in this bill is great. My direct contact with a cross section of the merchants of the city of Brandon would indicate that they are greatly disturbed over the legislation. This matter is something that crosses political barriers. Even some of the most ardent supporters of the government at the present time have been disturbed, first, at the ruthlessness in presenting the bill and, second, at the possible implications of the bill with respect to the present methods of marketing and trading that have been established by the retail merchants.
In a previous contribution I made to this debate I mentioned the fact that these people occupied an important place in the community. To give just one example, there is in my community a retail merchant who has served on the council and on the college board, who has been the president of the chamber of commerce for several terms, and whose wife has been active on the school board. He was loudest in his protest at the method of approach to the bill, having regard to the fact that it had been left to the dying moments of the session, that it had been subjected to the disturbing conditions of debate that I have already mentioned when it was difficult to get a hearing, and-
Combines Investigation Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Probably I should now bring to the attention of the house the fact that hon. members should not express in this house opinions of individuals outside the house on the subject of the present debate. Hon. members should express their own views on this subject. It is highly irregular to express the views of others who are not in the house on the question that is being discussed in the house at the present time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will conform to the ruling.
I am not going to prolong my observations this morning; I have presented them previously. I want to support emphatically the amendment that has come from the members of the official opposition because I feel that if this bill is to go through at the present time, under the present circumstances, it is only fair that the amendment we now have before us, which purports to set up some fair trade laws and practices, should also be included and implemented for the protection of the small retail merchant who is such an important citizen, particularly in the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
Just before concluding, may I say I also discovered the typical merchant feels that the type of service he is providing for the community is on a fair and equitable business basis. In fact, there was much evidence to indicate that the type of marketing carried on under the present practice of resale price maintenance has produced a situation of lower prices than had that type of marketing been exposed to the sort of laissez-faire free enterprise techniques that seemingly have been advocated from the government benches. This has been particularly true since the price index began to rise so alarmingly within the last year. Therefore they feel they have been giving a fair deal to the consumer. If there is any suspicion that there has been exploitation, that there has been a tendency towards unfair monopolies and combines, I am sure the type of commission which members of the official opposition have recommended to maintain fair trade laws should be adequate to deal with exploitation and monopoly interests wherever they arise. Therefore I heartily support the amendment before the house, and I do so for the reasons I have given.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope the hon. member for
Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale) will feel that I am dealing sufficiently with the arguments he has put forward in the general remarks I

Combines Investigation Act have to make about the amendment submitted by the hon. lady who represents Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). I am rising at this time to state that the amendment to the amendment put forward by the hon. lady is not acceptable to the government because it would mean in fact, as I think I will be able to show to her own satisfaction, that nothing at all would be done about the problem concerning which the government feels that something is required at this time.
The effect of her amendment is to have stand the first part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well):
That Bill No. 36 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation providing-
Her amendment proposes to strike out the words in the original amendment-
-that where regulation of resale price is in the public interest such regulation should be under public control instead of under private control.
And to substitute something which the hon. lady thinks is more precise, as follows: for the establishment of a fair trade commission.
That means that this bill would not now be read a second time, but that consideration would be given to some other form of legislation, and that other form would be the establishment of a fair trade commission.
I am sure the hon. member knows, as was quite clearly demonstrated by her leader in his speech on Friday in that connection, that this was attempted in 1935. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) quoted the paragraph of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, and stated that if hon. members would refer to what had taken place at that time they would see why great caution should be exercised in proceeding with this measure at this time. He said, as reported at page 2350 of Hansard:
In 1935 the parliament of Canada passed the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act which carried into legislative form many of the ideas incorporated in the fair trade laws of the United States.
The hon. member went on to say:
I assume all hon. members know that section 14-[DOT]
The section which provided for this matter.
-was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada.
He went on:
It is important for us to remember that, when this section was enacted, an attempt was made to put into effect in Canada what are described as fair trade practices.


Further down he said:
Further on he said that if this amendment was passed all hon. members would have the opportunity of getting legal advice upon it, and he went on:
Then if it is decided there are constitutional problems involved, as I most certainly think there are, it will be possible for them to lay the foundation for some other procedure which would bring about the kind' of result that has been obtained in other cases where it has been found that some subject of general interest to the people of Canada, but which is nevertheless exclusively within provincial jurisdiction under our constitution, can be brought into general operation.
Well, the method that has been found for doing that in the cases where it was necessary has been by amendments to the constitution; but I do not think any hon. member would feel that if there is a problem to be dealt with at this time the way to do it would be to try to get an amendment to the constitution which would allow fair trade legislation to be enacted by this parliament, because of course in these cases it was decided that under its ordinary jurisdiction parliament can forbid the doing of things which parliament feels are contrary to the public interest, but cannot regulate property and civil rights. And that it is only when that is required as an incident of national defence that the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces can be ousted and parliament can assert as its overriding right to provide for the proper defence of the country measures which would normally be within provincial jurisdiction.
I am rising at this time because a persistent effort has been made by the official opposition in the house, and by some of its supporters in the press outside the house, to suggest that the government is halfhearted about this bill; that we do not think it is a bill of much importance. That was referred to, in I think rather typical form, by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), when he said at page 2196 of Hansard:
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the bill has become a foundling. I understand a "foundling" is a child whose parents are unknown and cannot be discovered. While the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) sponsored the measure, through the speech from the throne, in dignified words, when he came to speak about it-I was going to say he blew hot and cold, but that wotild not be correct because there was no hot, he really just blew cold on it. What he said was this, as recorded at page 41 of Hansard for October 15, 1951:
". . . as regards immediate additional measures to curb inflation, while others may develop, the only one we are prepared to submit at this time is the one that will arise out of this report of the combines committee with respect to resale prices."
Then he said:
"I do not think that is going to have a, very substantial effect on the index of the cost of living."

He went on:
Having been rejected by the Prime Minister, the bill found itself on the doorstep of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson).
Well, the bill has not been rejected by the Prime Minister, nor by any of his colleagues. The bill is the government's recommendation to parliament to deal with a problem which is recognized even by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) himself, in. his speech on Friday. We see this at page 2353 of Hansard:
We recognize the fact that there are practices which should be under restraint. We recognize the fact-as it has been recognized in earlier attempts which have been made in this house to pass legislation-that there are practices which should be stopped.
That is also recognized by the government, and was recognized by the committee. The measure we are putting forward before the house is a government recommendation to put under restraint these practices which should be under restraint, and to deal with practices that should be stopped by stopping them. Then the leader of the opposition went on to say:
What I said was that I did not think at this stage we should seek to draft the bill, but rather that we should assert as a principle that we want this measure held back so there might be further inquiry, and so the advisability of having a fair trade commission-
And so on. And when the question was put to him by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), he said:
Without in any way seeking to evade the question, may I point out, as I did in the answer I just gave to the hon. member for Peace River, that we are not putting forward a bill, and1 that we are not attempting to cross the "t's" and to dot the "i's."
Well, we are attempting, in putting forward a bill, to cross the "t's" and to dot the "i's". This subamendment is a proposal to prevent that from being done, and instead to give consideration to something which the hon. member himself and his party realize and have stated frankly is, under present conditions, within, the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures. It was held in 1935 that the prohibitive portions of section 498A of the Criminal Code were within federal jurisdiction, and constituted valid legislation.
If, as I trust this house will find, and1 this parliament will find, there are resale price maintenance practices which should be under restraint, practices which should be stopped, the only way I know of to stop them under federal jurisdiction is the way which is proposed in this bill. And, after all, what does the bill provide? Merely that there shall not be a system of price controls organized by private agreement and enforced without responsibility to this parliament, without responsibility to the government, and without responsibility to the House of Commons, by
Combines Investigation Act such coercive measures as those who provide the product, the resale price of which is fixed, choose to exercise themselves.
We think that is not good practice. We think that under present conditions there would be no warrant for attempting to interfere otherwise with the economy of the Canadian nation than by prohibiting the things that are wrong.
There has been much debate in the house about the possible effect on some 700,000 retail traders, and of the right this would give them to take, as they should, the responsibility for prices they ask their customers to pay for the merchandise they buy from them.
On the other hand it is suggested that this is not going to have much effect on the cost of living index. I still do not think it will have very much effect on the cost of living index; but I do feel that any effect it is going to have is going to be toward a reduction of some of those prices, and toward the prevention of an upward surge of prices. And that is a fact which will be appreciated by the whole of the Canadian consuming public.
When it is suggested that it will not have much effect on prices for the consumers, and in the same breath suggested that it will destroy 700,000 retail merchants, then I think one argument cancels out the other.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would point out that in his enthusiasm I do not think the Prime Minister should introduce a statement that has not been made. There is no suggestion that it would destroy 700,000, but that it will threaten a lot of the smaller merchants in -this country.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the record of the speeches made by the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) speaks for itself; and they can be interpreted by anyone who chooses to look at the record1. It was not the view of the MacQuarrie committee, and it was not the view of the committee of the house, and it is not the view of the government that, under present conditions, there is any likelihood of this injury to any substantial number of small retailers.
I made the statement the other day, and I repeat it, that if as a result of this legislation or as a result of any other condition there develops a contrary abuse, the government will consider what recommendation it should make to parliament to deal with that contrary abuse. Because that is the only jurisdiction parliament has over these matters.
Here it is recognized that there are practices that should be under restraint, and that
2386	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act there are practices which should be stopped. Well, let us put them under restraint; let us stop them. Let us stop them now, and not have this resolution, which proposes that the jurisdiction of parliament be not exercised but that consideration should be given to something over which parliament has no jurisdiction.
It may be that we have underestimated the effect that this legislation will have on the reduction of prices. If it has any substantial effect in bringing down prices, no one will be harmed by it. Well, why, then, all this opposition against it-if no one will be harmed by it? It is apparent, not from anything I have heard outside but from what I have seen from the evidence before the committee of this house, that such important bodies as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Association of Consumers expect that those who belong to those bodies will derive some benefit from this greater freedom in the retailing trade of this country.
It has been suggested for some years now that the Conservative party was the only true liberal party, the only one that wanted to free the Canadian economy from these shackles. Here we bring forward one measure, one concrete measure, to free the retail trade of Canada from the shackles imposed upon them, not by parliament, not by a public authority, but by small groups of producers of the commodities they handle. The attitude taken in face of the proposal to free these retailers from these shackles is that which we have met since the second reading of this bill was proposed.
It seems to me that the partisans of free enterprise, of that freedom of trade which is possible under world conditions, should feel that it is proper for the retail merchant, who is the merchant with whom the consumers by and large have their dealings, should take the responsibility toward the individual purchaser of the price he asks him to pay. It may be that that price will still be the price suggested by the producer of the goods, but it will be the responsibility taken by the retail vendor and not by the producer of the goods to demand it from the consumer.
There is nothing proposed in this legislation which will prevent the suggestion of what would be a fair price. One would imagine that if the price suggested is fair it is apt to be adhered to. There is nothing in this bill which would prevent a producer fixing the maximum price at which his goods could be sold. But there will be in the bill a responsibility placed upon the dealer, whoever he is, for the price which he asks his


customer, the one with whom he makes his contract, to pay for the article the purchaser wishes to acquire.
If it be true, as I think a large body of consumers in Canada feel it is at the present time, that there are practices prevalent which should be under restraint, that there are practices prevalent which should be stopped, let us deal with those at the present time. It has been suggested that there may arise other problems; but the MacQuarrie committee, the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, and we on this side feel that that is not apt to happen. If it does happen, it will be time to deal with it when it does happen and in the form in which it does happen.
That is the proposal that is before the house. That is why the subamendment which the hon. lady from Hamilton West has moved cannot be accepted as an adequate solution of the problem which exists at the present time. I spoke on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and I shall not add anything on that score.
I am not in any way complaining of full discussion and deliberation in connection with this proposal. I particularly welcomed the contribution which the leader of the opposition made on Friday because, had he not done so, I would have felt that it was my duty to point out that the attempt made to deal with perhaps the obverse problem by fair trade legislation had been made and that all that survived was the prohibitory provision which became section 498A of the Criminal Code.
It is because both the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act have been under fire before the courts and have both been found to be a valid exercise of the jurisdiction of this parliament that, when we came to the conclusion that in addition to the other measures we had adopted or had recommended to parliament for adoption to curb inflation there might be this further attempt, it was put in the form which it has taken in this bill.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Tell us about closure
when you have said that you welcomed the contribution of the leader of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: You were out west.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman and I are both lawyers and I think as reasonable human beings we feel that under normal conditions closure is something that should not be resorted to, that it is only when it becomes quite obvious, as it seemed to be

becoming before Thursday last, that there was being a futile repetition, that any thought can be given to closure.
So long as there is debate of the kind that took place in this house on Friday-I think that that debate was illuminating and instructive-no one should resent the time it took to have it take place. I hope that the debate will not get back to a plane where it will appear to be indefinitely repetitious for the sake of consuming time.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in view of the explanatory remarks that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has made he would agree to answer a question which has not yet been answered. What is the reason for the urgency that makes it unwise and undesirable to let this bill stand until the next session? I would point out that we have had no real reason as yet.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the reason was given by the hon. member himself when he stated that it was recognized that there are practices that should be under restraint and that there are practices that should be stopped. That being the case, we feel that that should be done as soon as the evil manifests itself and produces consequences for the public that the public should not have to endure.


George Alexander Drew: In that respect I would point out that I said that I did not think it was desirable to shoot the patient in order to cure a single complaint.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope that we will not have the kind of debate that would revolve around the shooting of the patient. That is not the kind of debate that I had in mind when answering the hon. member for Lake Centre.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the Prime
Minister has changed his views.


Mr. Cleaver:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired
with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons). Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment.

Combines Investigation Act


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: On
a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, on Friday when I spoke I thought the debate was about to end, and I said we would not delay the proceedings by dividing the house. The subamendment was subsequently moved, so I feel that we should call for the yeas and nays on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the amendment?


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker, I propose to avail myself of the privilege of speaking on the amendment which has been presented because it does raise another proposal which we indicated in our statements on Friday did not really conform with the general trend towards fair trade practices which has been developing for some considerable time on this continent, and in some measure in Great Britain as well. I want to speak on some of the points which were raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) this morning concerning the reasons for pressing this bill forward at this time.
The Prime Minister referred to the fact that on Friday I pointed out that we were asking for consideration of the setting up of a fair trade commission, and that in doing so I had said that it was not our intention to draft a bill or cross the "t's" and dot the "i's". He said quite properly that this was the responsibility of the government, and that the government accepted that responsibility. The drafting of a bill of this nature is, of course, the responsibility of the government, and that is exactly what I was pointing out. The drafting of a bill of this kind is the responsibility of the government, and it is not sufficient for the government to say that if we find this bill does great damage to the small merchants throughout this country, then we are prepared, after the damage has been done, to introduce further legislation which will seek to rectify that damage.


Mr. Croll:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


David Arnold Croll: If that happens does it not enhance your political position?


George Alexander Drew: That comment is not worthy of the member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). It would suggest that the only thought that is actuating the member for Spadina is a political one, and I would regret to make that suggestion in this chamber. We are not dealing with something that affects only a limited number of people. I wish to emphasize, what we have sought to emphasize from the beginning, that we are concerned with the effect of this legislation upon the Canadian consumer. We

believe that the Canadian consumer is the person who is going to suffer if our whole commercial and mercantile structure, built up over many years of trial and error, is upset by ill-considered legislation which has not been given that measure of examination which it should have been given, and which was indicated at the time that a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada was set up some time during the course of this present session.
It is the Canadian consumer who is going to suffer if, as a result of legislation which has no qualifying clause, those merchants who provide for their daily requirements are either forced to the wall, as was predicted by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), or find that they are unable to maintain that measure of service which has become part of our whole social practice in this country. Throughout Canada today the small merchant provides services which are very much a part of the daily life of our society and of the way in which the ordinary household throughout this country is operated.
The Prime Minister, correctly and in generous terms, has commented on what I said in this house on Friday about the nature of this problem. I must express my appreciation of his statement that he welcomed what I said about the nature of this problem as a whole. He referred to my statement that it is recognized that, under a system of agreed or maintained prices, abuses may creep in. I asserted that proposition in supporting the suggestion that consideration should be given to the setting up of a fair trade commission. What I said, however, did not go so far as to suggest support of the proposal now before us in this amendment which I find rather difficult to understand in view of the conflicting statements made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for York South.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar naturally spoke in support of the amendment but indicated that he saw no dangers which would preclude his voting for the bill if his amendment was not supported. I wish to refer once again to the clear and unqualified statement of the hon. member for York South that the government had given us no reasons for the haste in pressing this measure forward and that it must be recognized that, if price maintenance was prohibited in this way, the small merchant would be driven to the wall by the big businesses and the chain stores. That, at any rate, is the opinion of the hon. member for York South and it is one which has been expressed across this country.

What I sought to emphasize on Saturday and what I seek to emphasize again today, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has referred to those remarks in explaining the position of the government in relation to the subamendment on which the vote was just taken, is that price cutting may appear to give to the consumer a temporary advantage which may prove illusory when the full impact of unrestrained price cutting is felt. The experience in this country as well as in the United States, whose economy is so similar to our own, and in Great Britain, has been that cut-throat competition, absolutely unrestrained price cutting, gives only a temporary advantage to the people who benefit from the sacrifice prices but that, in the end, it is the consumer who suffers when the small merchant goes under and great trusts and cartels are formed which take advantage of their increasing monopolies that result from legislation of this kind.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for York South-and I hope he will forgive me if I refer on a number of occasions to what he said-if his prediction is correct what would result from this measure, which the leader of the C.C.F. party has said he is prepared to support if the amendment is defeated, is that the small merchant will go to the wall under the pressure of the big businesses and the chain stores. What we have been suggesting to this house is that any advantage that might come from that result would not be a long-term advantage and that it would be the consumers themselves who would in the end suffer from the closing down of many of the stores which now give them service and from the formation of still greater monopolies and cartels which would have even more effective control over prices than anything which has emerged so far.
As the Prime Minister has pointed out, on Friday I said that abuses can develop under agreements of this kind. For that very reason the test should be this:	Are the agreements in the public interest or are they not? That should be the test. After all, our responsibility in this house, as I understand it, regardless of party, is to find what is antisocial and what is not. We may have different ways of seeking to solve the problems that arise. We may have different ways of seeking to prevent anti-social conduct. Nevertheless, I think it may fairly be said that the members of this House of Commons throughout the years have generally given the people of Canada reason for some measure of pride in the fact that the thing which has guided their efforts has been that question: Is it anti-social? Is it contrary to the public interest? If it is, let us deal with it. But
Combines Investigation Act if it is not, let us be sure that we are not simply carried away by arguments which have an appealing sound but which may have many weak spots which have not been fully explored.
In this case we are not dealing with something that is new; in this case we are not asked to approach this problem without the experience of many years for our assistance and guidance. We know that over the years efforts have been made to prevent anti-social activities under any agreements that would be contrary to the public interest. That very principle was fully recognized when an earlier Liberal government introduced the combines investigation legislation in 1923. In that legislation there was a clear reservation that a combine or an association of businesses to fix prices, or to affect prices generally, would be regarded as an offence under the act if it was contrary to the public interest. There was no qualification. It must be contrary to the public interest; it must be anti-social. Why is that provision not included in the measure now before us? An earlier Liberal government felt it was important to recognize that where there were abuses there might also be agreements or understandings that would actually be in the public interest. This government has recognized that principle, because it has not introduced an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act to remove that condition from the present act. If that principle is unsound in relation to the amendment now before us, it is equally unsound in regard to these larger combines which could have so much greater effect on the life and on the welfare and on the living conditions of our people.
If it is not wise to put in the reservation that it must be contrary to the public interest, that it must be anti-social, if it is not wise to introduce this prohibition into any agreement of any kind in regard to prices, then, in the light of the experience in the milling combine investigation, why was there not an amendment introduced at the same time to withdraw that reservation that now is contained in the definition of a combine which creates an offence? Perhaps the minister might have had an argument there, because he might even have suggested that that was an explanation for his failing to act in that particular case which had been brought to his attention by the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act. No; there is no suggestion that in regard to these great horizontal combines there should be any withdrawal of the reservation that it must be anti-social and contrary to the public interest. But

Combines Investigation Act when it comes to the merchant dealing with the public, the merchant who day by day is giving some measure of service to the public not included in any of the prices that are being fixed or that are settled by these agreements that I referred to, the government says: "Oh, no. It is admitted that there may be wrongdoing under agreements of this kind, and that being so we will make it impossible for anyone to have any kind of agreement, whether it is good for the public or not." That is exactly what we object to. We say: It is no new discovery of this government that there can be antisocial results of the agreements where the agreements disregard the public interest. We know that, and we have pointed out that the Conservative party took its stand on this subject some years ago, and has not varied from that position. I pointed out on Friday that the Conservative party introduced in 1935 a measure which was based on the proposition that there could be abuses, and also that there could be agreements which are in the public interest. It has been pointed out by the minister who has introduced this measure that there is a large spread in certain cases between the price charged by the manufacturer and the price charged by the merchant. I have no doubt that the figures he has given are figures taken from evidence that has been placed on record. But, Mr. Speaker, the evidence in regard to action of that kind does not end there. I have no doubt that there are cases that should be dealt with, and we should have some mechanism to deal with them, without simply having an all-embracing prohibition of the kind contemplated by this legislation, and in no way improved by the amendment now before us.
I would point out that if the minister is anxious to deal with this subject effectively, what he should do, even at this time, is to ask the government to agree with him that the measure be withdrawn and that there be a general examination of the Combines Investigation Act and general amendments that will deal with this whole problem. I point out to him something that a great many Canadians learned during the season which has just passed, and which many of us might not have regarded as being completely past if the delay in bringing down this important legislation had not brought us back here at this time. Many Canadians , discovered that it is not only under agreements of the kind mentioned that there can be a great increase in prices. I imagine that many people who were shopping during the weeks that preceded Christmas and saw some particular article that they wanted to buy for some member of their family or some friend were


very much impressed by the fact that things which they saw advertised in New York, Buffalo, Detroit or Chicago newspapers, or other newspapers in the United States, were in a number of cases selling for more than twice as much here as they would have sold for in the United States. That is not accounted for by tariff. That is not accounted for by any ordinary arrangements, and it certainly is not accounted for by the agreements which are regarded as the big bad wolf by the minister who is putting forward this particular legislation. These are cases where we might well regard the advisability of some supervising authority who may make inquiries and find out just why it is that articles, which perhaps gain their popularity by advertising, printed in the United States and coming into this country, are sold at the prices which they are able to command here under the heavy pressure of Christmas buying.
No, Mr. Speaker, the Combines Investigation Act should be regarded as one document, as one piece of legislation. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If it is wise that the public interest should be the test in the case of horizontal combines or horizontal agreements, then the public interest should be the test in the case of vertical agreements as well.
And that is the situation we have before us. The minister leaves the reservation in the case of the great horizontal combines, but in the case of the vertical combines or the vertical agreements, sought by the merchants themselves-according to the evidence given to the committee, while it was permitted to sit

the merchants wanted an arrangement of this kind, and they wanted some measure of price arrangement which would make it possible to have orderly marketing.
This is something that goes back into the memory of anyone now sitting in the chamber. Just a few days ago I saw reprinted some very interesting advertisements of nearly a hundred years ago. They were printed for the purpose of showing the difference in dollar prices of similar things at that time and today. I noticed that the prices were advertised by the manufacturer away back a hundred years ago, and presumbly those were the prices at which people expected to buy those things in the stores.
The Prime Minister has said, "It is quite possible that merchants may take the suggestion of the manufacturers". Oh, that opens up interesting possibilities. There are more ways than one of skinning a cat. And the Prime Minister says, "Even if this measure is passed, it is quite possible that the suggestion of the manufacturer, who is the

source of supply, may be taken by the merchant-even with the act in force."
Does the government believe that, or not? If the government believes that, then this measure is a hoax. If the government believes that, then this measure is a fraud on the people of Canada. If the government believes that, then I think we can only come to the conclusion that the Financial Post was right, and that the reason this bill is being pressed forward is so that when the January sales are announced the people will think they are the result of this half-baked bill.


Mr. Rowe:: The cat is out of the bag now.


George Alexander Drew: No other reason has been given to the house. No other sound reason has been given. I suggested to the Prime Minister that, in the absence of any explanation from the minister who introduced the bill, we should have some explanation now as to why this bill cannot well stand over until the next regular session of parliament. The Prime Minister said-and while I may not quote his exact words, I hope he will agree that I properly interpret the text of his remarks in, this connection'-"it would mean that nothing effective would be done in relation to something which the government thinks should be dealt with now."
Well, how effective is it? The Prime Minister has told us-and in this I certainly am not interpreting his remarks inaccurately-"I do not think it is going to have much effect on the cost of living". If it is not going to have much effect on the cost of living, just what is the urgency? If this is a measure to deal with inflation, which we have been urging should be dealt with since the house met in special session in August 1950, after the outbreak of hostilities in Korea-I say if this is a measune to deal with inflation, then this measure is too little and too late.
Nothing the Prime Minister said this morning, and nothing the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has said or will say, offered any sound foundation for the belief that this is in fact a measure designed to attack the vitally important problem of inflation and the cost of living. And yet this is the only measure, according to the Prime Minister himself, that this government proposes to bring forward during the course of this session to deal with the problem of inflation. The Prime Minister said this morning: If there are these evil practices to which I have referred, then, to use his words-and I hope, again, that I interpret correctly the context of them-let us stop them, and let tus stop them now.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.
Combines Investigation Act


George Alexander Drew: I hear from one of the Liberal members, "hear, hear".


David Arnold Croll: All of us.


George Alexander Drew: Spadina is heard from again. I hear, "From all of us, hear, hear." Well, if that is so, then let us have before us a bill that stops those who are guilty of wrongdoing but does not stop those who have agreements that can be shown to be in the public interest.
Let us be sure that in stopping wrongdoing we do not prevent a service to the people, a service which has been given by many small merchants of this country, and given in a manner which has not at any time sought to prejudice the real welfare of consumers throughout this country.
The Prime Minister has also said that parliament can forbid the doing of those things which it thinks should not be done. I believe there would be a better opportunity to deal in more detail with that particular aspect of the matter at a later stage in the debate. However, I would point out that the whole idea or, shall I say, the basic consideration in the minds of hon. members in dealing with legislation which is in the realm of criminal law should be whether or not there is in fact some anti-social or criminal act with which we are dealing.
At no point in the arguments made in support of this bill has there been the slightest suggestion that there is any criminal offence in this instance. It is simply suggested that this is a commercial operation which should not be permitted. It has simply been suggested, without any real evidence to support the argument, that the consumer will benefit in some way if he is able to go into a store and know in advance the price he will have to pay for the article he wants.
Nowhere has there been a single argument put forward that could be taken reasonably as supporting evidence for the enactment of something that, in effect, is criminal law. Nowhere in the statements that have been made is there any evidence that could be received by this high court of parliament on which they could pass judgment that we are dealing with something in the nature of a criminal offence. The measure now before us is making any agreement that seeks to establish uniform and known price levels a criminal offence, whether in the public interest or not.
If this measure were enforced-of course we all have to admit that that is something which will remain to be seen because we still require evidence that the minister will enforce one part of the Combines Investigation Act any more than another-if this act



Combines Investigation Act is enforced, when it is made law-the uncertainty as to what might happen was indicated in the report itself when it reminded the Minister of Justice that section 498A was in the Criminal Code and that it should be enforced when there were infractions-we are going to get back to practices that a lot of Canadian consumers do not want. They would have to go into a store, ask the merchant the price of a particular article, and then the merchant might name one price and we would get back to the type of trading which the people of this country decided a long time ago they did not like, that is, haggling over prices and not being sure that they were getting as good a deal as somebody else.
We are simply turning back the clock one hundred years in this country if we prevent an arrangement which will assure that every Canadian consumer who goes into a particular store is going to get the particular article he or she wants without setting aside a substantial amount of time in which to haggle over the price. I am convinced that most if not all the small merchants of this country are not anxious to see a return of practices of that kind.
Nevertheless, once we get to the point where there can be no settled prices, then we must certainly get back to the point where the determination to do business on that basis may be too great to resist. We would certainly get to the point where merchants would not be able to settle their prices or do it with any measure of certainty because the prices would be sufficiently fluid that they would require to be adjusted.
May I emphasize the fact that we have indicated that there are immense advantages in competition. I must confess that I was interested to see the extent to which the members of the party immediately to our left seem to have accepted the same views that we have held for a long time on this subject. Nevertheless there are no absolute rules in any case of this kind. The fact that there can be a limit to the type of competition that is to the advantage of the public has been demonstrated by the extent to which this country, the United States and Great Britain have gone in trying to find some balance between unrestrained cut-throat competition and that rigidity of prices which would deny any of the advantages of competition.
I would remind the house that every argument we have put forward is premised on our belief that the Combines Investigation Act should be strengthened so that it will be a really effective instrument for dealing either with horizontal or with vertical combines which are contrary to the public interest. We

have asserted, and we reassert, the proposition that it is the welfare of the Canadian consumer which must be the one and overriding test, and that in any act of this kind there should be a reservation that the thing which we are prohibiting must be something that is anti-social and contrary to the public interest. We must certainly not find ourselves in the position of doing something that is contrary to the public interest in an effort to cure abuses by undue haste in introducing legislation to deal with abuses which we recognize can take place under agreements where prices are fixed either by the government, by individuals or by corporations in this country.
I suggest that the Prime Minister has given the strongest reasons why this legislation should stand over until next session; why this legislation should be given further consideration; why a committee of both houses should be set up which will really be permitted to inquire and to report upon evidence that is comprehensive and inclusive and not simply be a sham, as was the committee which met during the course of this session.
Those reasons are contained in the statement of the Prime Minister that he does not believe that this measure can have much effect on the cost of living. I wish to add to that the remark he did make that possibly it might have more effect than the government thinks it is going to have. That indeed would be a surprising way to act, to introduce legislation and to draw up a bill they did not think was going to have the desired effect, then introduce it and pass it just on the possibility that it may not do too much harm and may do more good than they themselves think it is going to do at this particular time. That would be a new process of legislating, and a very dangerous one indeed, if it is possible that it is going to do more good than they think, it is equally possible that it is going to do a great deal more harm.
It does of course introduce a certain excitement into life that has not ordinarily been the anticipated purpose of legislation put forward seriously by the government to this high court of parliament. The very fact that the Prime Minister, on the one hand, has said that he does not think it is going to have much effect on the cost of living and, on the other hand, that it may have more effect than they think it is going to have, suggests added reasons why in the interests of the Canadian consumer our general mercantile system should not be taken by the scruff of the neck and told that they must abandon practices that have been built up

over the years without the slightest opportunity to demonstrate that what they are doing is actually in the public interest and to the benefit of the consumer.
What has been said this morning is an added reason why this legislation should stand over until the next session of parliament so that there may be a full and comprehensive inquiry, and so that when the government does present the bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act it will be able to do what it cannot do this morning, to say that this is what we think the result will be and we give you the evidence why it will actually help Canadian consumers.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Howe:: The voice of little business.


William Earl Rowe: I hear somebody speaking about big business. I might say-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said "little business".


William Earl Rowe: -that so far as the modern economy we have today and the democracy we are trying to save are concerned, the big business people are not destroying them half as much as little politicians.


An hon. Member:: You ought to know.


William Earl Rowe: I think the more business is interfered with in various ways the more our economy and democratic system are endangered. Like every other hon. member of this house, I have a great responsibility, and I think I represent as many little interests as anyone else. Besides the people of my constituency there are several thousand little interests that are big interests at Christmas time. I refer to the labouring man's family and his standard of living. I take second place to no one in this house in my interest in his welfare as well as the welfare of this country. But, Mr. Speaker, this is a strange spectacle when we are called back to parliament at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: I hear some hon. members laugh, but it is not a laughing matter to thousands of people, thousands of little men in this dominion. We have an economy of which we are proud. We have a free enterprise system that has even endured the socialistic tendencies of modern Liberalism. We have in this country a state of affairs that we are proud to show to the world. We have had such a development in the last number of years that with some pride the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) can shove his chest out occasionally and say that despite the strange type of trade
Combines Investigation Act philosophy of those who sit behind him in parliament he has at least been responsible to a great extent for encouraging a period of great expansion.
A few days ago, as the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said today, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made a certain suggestion. I think he probably did so in the hectic days of the Christmas rush because he, like me, is a proud grandfather and wanted to get home to see that Santa Claus played fair with his delightful grandchildren. He suggested that if there were no other way of handling the situation he would, with the great and powerful majority behind him-and you know, Mr. Speaker, how power corrupts; some it corrupts almost completely-introduce closure. But now he comes back and in the Christmas spirit suggests that after being home for Christmas he now takes a different view of the situation entirely.


John George Diefenbaker: That was a strategic retreat.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member says it was a strategic retreat. I remember an ex-minister of agriculture, whom the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will recall very well, who would have called that recantation No. 1. I refer to the late and popular Mr. Motherwell. However, I am glad, even though we are now interrupting the Christmas holidays for the first time I believe in the history of this parliament, that we are now to have the right to discuss the matter fully. It is rather inspiring that we have that right now because neither the MacQuarrie committee nor the so-called investigating committee of the house took time to look into the question properly. While they did not take time enough to look the matter squarely in the face and see all the intricate problems involved, it is a good thing, even though Christmas is over, that in the spirit of Christmas cheer we can take all the time we wish.


An hon. Member:: You should know about Christmas cheer.


William Earl Rowe: I think my hon. friend does not really understand true Christmas cheer any more than he understands this issue. I have said we have an economy of which we are very proud. Even though the country has endured a great deal from the present government, I am not going to say that some of its members have not a pretty sound economic philosophy. In fact we must all agree that our development in the last number of years has been spectacular and something for pride on the part of everyone who calls himself or herself a Canadian. Nevertheless it has been the type of economy that has brought about

Combines Investigation Act new problems and, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has emphasized so clearly, we cannot turn the clock of progress back.
I was very proud to hear my leader express the views he has. I know that they must be somewhat disturbing even to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). He sees the clear-cut political significance of the fact that the one man in Canada today who is giving more leadership than any other is the leader of the opposition in this house. When that type of popularity comes to the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition it is called politics by those who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker; but whenever it comes-and it rarely does-from the other side of the house it is called statesmanship. We hear a lot of talk about loss leaders, but I know something about that.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: You
should know something about it.


William Earl Rowe: Loss leaders are not as conspicuous at the present time as leaders who seem to be lost.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes.


William Earl Rowe: There are fair trade practices, and in fact free trade practices, to which the Liberal party at one time adhered.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2:30 p.m.


William Earl Rowe: When the house adjourned at noon, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the fair trade practices that have been developing in this country and the United States in a rapidly changing economy. These are changes which we cannot ignore. I can recall, and I am sure you can too, Mr. Speaker, the early days when competition between retailers, and indeed all classes of society, was rampant, and there was little interference by government. The burning question today is the cost of living itself, and I am sure every hon. member in this house realizes that there is no one worthy of being in this house who will not do what he can, and what he believes would be wise, to reduce the cost of living. There is no one here who has not sympathy for the man with a large family who, no matter what his wages may be, is still unable to meet his requirements because of the heavy taxation of the government plus the high cost of the commodities which his family needs. I am sure every hon. member to your right recognizes that that is why their party has suffered defeat in the last five byelections. People are dissatisfied with the high cost of living and the heavy burden of

taxation, especially when the government is showing such a large surplus.
People are wondering why they have to pay these exorbitant taxes, unless it is to prepare a campaign plan for the next election, because if the government is overtaxing the people now they can reduce taxes before an election. When one considers how much the government has interfered with business in this country, it is a rather spectacular change to find the government taking this attitude about what you might call fair trade practices. These practices have grown up over many years, for almost half a century in this country and longer in the United States. This morning the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) indicated that something must be done. The government is prepared to cross the "t's" and dot the "i's". They are prepared to restrict and restrain; they are prepared to control our economy so that every voter will have a square deal.
It seems to me that the haste with which this measure has been introduced is rather phenomenal. As the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition very well said this morning, surely we should take time to consider an issue that may well disturb our whole economy. As he has pointed out, I do not believe anyone has said that it is going to put 700,000 retailers out of business.


Mr. Sinnott:: You were not here to hear him.


Sarto Fournier: No
one believed him.


William Earl Rowe: However, Mr. Speaker, if I was no more use here than some of the hon. members who stay here all the time, my absence would not be so conspicuous.


Sarto Fournier: He
admits it.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member who is interrupting sits so close to me that I am not sure whether he is laughing with me or at me, or whether he is supporting us or the members to the right. I do not say that he is not a loyal supporter of the government, because the rump of this government is more important than the head. I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very important issue. I hope the government realizes that this is not an attempt at killing time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: No, Mr. Speaker; I know that the Prime Minister said that he is not going to put on closure unless, in his judgment, closure is necessary. If the hon. member for

Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) or some other member needles this government or makes a speech that will embarrass the government, then the government may reconsider closure if the opposition reverts to the same type of debate-


Sarto Fournier: It
should be applied right now.


William Earl Rowe: No doubt you have been saying that in your caucus.


Sarto Fournier: We
have not had any caucus.


William Earl Rowe: Oh, you did not? Thank you for the information.


Sarto Fournier: We
know you have had plenty of them.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, we have caucuses because we have a leader who gets a decision from his whole group before he acts. We have the most democratic leader in this house. The public now knows that he is leading a Conservative group in which every member of this party is 100 per cent behind him. Let my hon. friends who are interrupting go out and tell the retailers of this country the same story; let them tell it to the little man on the back concession who gets up at three o'clock in the morning to get syrup for some mother's baby after the mother has walked through two feet of snow to get there. It is all very well to laugh, but I know as much about the rural parts of this country as any hon. member here. In fact, this cold I have was caused by digging my car out of the snow on a back concession last week. I know how the people in the rural parts of the province of Ontario live, as well as those in western Canada where they have not got an automobile. Those people walk to the corner store and get the storekeeper up at night to obtain some medicine, probably a standard brand at a standard price. This is not a laughing matter. The heart and soul of free enterprise in this country is the middle class, the little storekeeper or the druggist who is struggling along.
I can recall very well that the small retailer who went out of business between the twenties and the thirties. During those years the large corporation and the big chain stores took the place of the little retailer.


Sarto Fournier: Humbug time. You were a minister then.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, no hon. member is a better judge of humbug than is the one who sits at my right.


Mr. Speaker:: With so many interruptions it is extremely difficult for the hon. member
Combines Investigation Act who has the floor to make his remarks relevant to the subject under discussion. I would therefore ask hon. members to refrain from making interruptions. The hon. member seems to enjoy it, but I think we might make better progress if there were not so many interruptions.


William Earl Rowe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I probably do not enjoy it as much as you might think; but I trust that my remarks are more relevant to the issue than are the interruptions which have been disturbing you. But may I say this, Mr. Speaker; I have watched the situation and I have seen what has taken place under the guise of national defence. We are all greatly concerned about our defence of this country, about the high cost of living and of those things which are vital to the people who cannot afford them as well as can those of us who are sitting here today. But, Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed and alarmed at how we hide behind national defence, and at how our government wants to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" and control the economy of this country under the guise of national defence. Mr. Speaker, we have an all-powerful government-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt if the hon. member's remarks now are relevant to the issue before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Sarto Fournier: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, might I say that it might be useful to everybody, and especially to my hon. friend at my left, for the Speaker to inform us exactly as to what is the point we are discussing now.


William Earl Rowe: No, Mr. Speaker; I am not going to be distracted from what I have to say by the failure to understand on the part of some of my colleagues who sit so close to me. After a lengthy debate I hope that he will understand why this is an issue that the people are concerned about. It is not a case of repartee or wisecracks. It is something that affects the economy of this country and disturbs a practice that has been carried on for well-nigh half a century.
I have mentioned that the small retailer who is affected by this measure is the heart and soul of free enterprise in this country. I have mentioned that hon. members who were here between 1921 and 1930-and there are not so many of them-will recall how the small storekeepers' signs which bore their family name, and which had been on the store windows for fifty years, disappeared through the onrush of the larger merchants such as A & P and other big stores. We need

Combines Investigation Act those big stores in the big centres; we need them in an expanding economy. Again I say that this is a big country; it is a wide and expansive one, and covers a large area. There are thousands of grand families living on the outskirts of these big centres.
We have heard a great deal about unfair competition. I can well remember, Mr. Speaker, how those who sit to your right today in the old days would talk about fair trade, about cut-throat competition. How they have despised cut-throat competition! Now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), one of these new apostles of a new type of western Liberalism, comes down and tells us that we must have a different competition. He says it is not going to hurt many, that if they are efficient, the little storekeeper could still live despite what he is doing to him. Despite all the brilliance of the present Minister of Justice, can you imagine for a moment that he knows more about merchandising than do the people who have been practising it for half a century? Can anybody imagine that these little champions of a new form of Liberalism do? The Minister of Agriculture has fixed the price of wheat. He has established and tried to support agricultural marketing boards. He has confused the whole wheat market and he is now trying to ruin the butter and egg business. The Minister of Justice, another one with another type of philosophy, now comes down and tells us: My colleague has fixed the price of the farmers' products to the consumer through the milk boards and so on. I am going to let the devil take the hindmost. I am going to leave it to rugged individualism. I have a new brand of social philosophy for the Liberal party and I am going to stop the retailer. I am not sure what I will do about loss leaders.


Mr. Gardiner:: It is the Tory government in Ontario that runs the milk board.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, but are you sure that this will not upset your whole agricultural market philosophy if you follow the philosophy of the Minister of Justice? You cannot blow hot and cold. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister blew lukewarm this morning, with so many of those around him blowing hot and cold. Mr. Speaker, you can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. You probably know that this is a shot-gun prescription, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is playing with it like a little boy with a loaded: shotgun. He does not know what is in it. He does not know whether or not it will go off; and if it does go off, he does not know what it is going to do.

He does not know whether it is going to lower prices. He says it might lower them but he says he does not believe it will lower them much. But if the retailer is a really good friend of the Prime Minister, in a riding that might be doubtful, he should lower them in January anyway, to make it look popular, because the Prime Minister does not know what is going to happen.


Sarto Fournier: Not
clever but wise.


William Earl Rowe: The Prime Minister says that the gun might go off but that he is not just sure of what will take place. He criticized the leader of the opposition for saying that the prescription might kill the patient. He does not know whether it will kill the patient or resuscitate him. He cannot cure the patient because he has not diagnosed the disease. The Minister of Justice cannot tell us. Neither could the MacQuarrie committee tell us what a loss leader was, really. If you cannot diagnose the case, I will leave it to any doctor to find what prescription he would use.
Then, Mr. Speaker, why the emergency right in the midst of our Christmas holidays? You would think that war had broken out this year. The minister siays: This peril is here and we have got to legislate to restrict resale price maintenance. We have got to cross the "t's" and dot the "i's" now when it is necessary. There is a great peril threatening the economy of this country. You would imagine that this whole thing was going to collapse around our heads. In all the years of fair trade practices we now have 15 per cent of the great volume of trade in this country under resale price maintenance. In fifty years this practice has absorbed 15 per cent of the great volume of trade in this country! Now in the Christmas season, between Christmas and New Year's, we must rush back to parliament and solve this immediately before it overtakes the whole country. In fifty years it has absorbed 15 per cent. I will leave it to you, with your mathematics, Mr. Speaker-you have more time at present than I have-to figure out how many years it will take to absorb all of our economy. Yet we have to take action here before the 1st of January. Yes, it smacks to me of the January sales. If the Prime Minister knows half as much about economics as he does about corporation law, he knows that in January the sales generally take place anyway, and prices will fall anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, they will fall anyway. Even the hon. member who interrupts on the back benches knows that. I did not know that he did.


An hon. Member:: That cat is out of the bag.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, Mr. Speaker; as somebody says, the cat is out of the bag. It came out this morning.	It looked like
one of those with a Christmas ribbon tied around its neck because it was then showing exactly what this government is trying to do. Mr. Speaker, this government cannot tell the consumers today that, because they are going to stop the imposition of resale price maintenance on 15 per cent of the volume of standard brands, that is going to lower the cost of living. The Prime Minister himself this morning said that he did not see that it might lower prices very much, but he thought that the retailers might lower the prices. He thought that. But if the retailers lower prices, what guarantee has the man in the back concession-the man that some hon. members were laughing at a few moments ago-will not have to pay more money at the corner grocery store? What guarantee have you that as to the standard brands that have been under the practices of the trade or manufacturers indicating the prices that should be charged, the prices will not be tampered with so that you could sell those standard brands at 30 per cent less than I can sell them?


Mr. Cannon:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Earl Rowe: Yes.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: The manufacturer can still impose a maximum price. There is no danger of the retailer increasing the prices.


William Earl Rowe: I am not just sure what that has contributed to the issue, but in view of the fact that I am trying to be relevant in my discussion of the issue I shall try to help the hon. member to be relevant. The manufacturer stops manufacturing when he cannot make a profit.


Mr. Garson:: It just happens to be the point that the hon. member is discussing.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad to get some help, because this is the first time that I have ever had any help from that side of the house.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: If you will permit me, the point I was making is that if this legislation is passed the manufacturer will still be able to impose maximum prices.


Some hon. Members:: So what?


William Earl Rowe: I think everybody knows that that is true. In fact, the maximum price can become the minimum price. As one who knows something about manufacturing I may say that because of the high cost of wages and of manufacturing you do not usually manufacture at a loss. But I do know this, 94699-1521
Combines Investigation Act and it came out in the MacQuarrie committee report and in other investigations in 1948, and so forth, that on the 15 per cent that is controlled by resale price maintenance policies from the manufacturer to the retailer, on that range of goods, the prices, percentagewise, have increased less than on the other 85 per cent. You ask why.


Mr. Mutch:: Nobody said a word.


William Earl Rowe: I will tell you why. The reason is that the volume of business usually increases because of the stability and prestige of the product and the confidence that the public hold in the product, knowing that it sells at the same price across the board. They know that in the manufacture of the standard brands quality is not tampered with; they know that the small fellow in the outlying districts, where there is no competition, is not going to charge 50 per cent more than the article is worth. They know that somebody else is not going to put out the standard brands as a loss leader so that they will get you in and sell you ten times as much at higher prices.
I have grave misgivings of any part this government proposes to play in the economy of this country. I have watched what has happened when they have dabbled in the markets. I say again, and in all seriousness, that it is a strange spectacle we see today. Here is a practice that has gone on in my memory for over a quarter of a century, and which was not questioned once by the commissioner of combines. Now we are here between Christmas and New Year's in order to get it settled before the January sales.
The effect of fair trade practices has not been disproved, Mr. Speaker. I cannot remember when fair trade practices have not meant a better deal for the consumer. I take the view opposite to that of the Prime Minister of this country when I say that this legislation will cost the consumer money instead of saving him money. It will destroy the protection of standard brands; it is unnecessary, unsound and uneconomical; it deals with no emergency at all in any sense of the word. The Prime Minister answered that himself when he said he did not believe it would have any particular effect on the cost of living. Therefore there is no peril except after fifty years resale price maintenance has developed to the extent of 15 per cent. This is a practice that has been in force for over half a century, but the Prime Minister now informs us that it has grown so fast that it must be stopped before New Year's day.


Mr. Poulioi:: May I ask the hon. member a question?

Combines Investigation Act


William Earl Rowe: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have been following him very closely and I wonder whether he is not repeating the same speech that he made sixteen years ago in defence of the Natural Products Marketing Act of the Bennett government which was declared illegal by the privy council?


William Earl Rowe: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not remember the speech I made sixteen years ago, but I am delighted that my-


Mr. McCann:: Nor anything else.


William Earl Rowe: You do not; you were not here. I am delighted that my genial friend, the hon. member for Temiscouata, was so impressed by it sixteen years ago that he has never forgotten it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not suffer from amnesia.


William Earl Rowe: I have a great regard for the hon. member for Temiscouata, and I do not believe that I have ever suffered as much in listening to his speeches as he has suffered in listening to mine.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not suffering; I am enjoying it.


William Earl Rowe: Thank you.


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret that my hon. friend is not wiser, because he is the only privy councillor of the Bennett government in this house. He was as impressive then as was his leader of the time.


William Earl Rowe: I must thank the hon. member for Temiscouata. I think his compliments are more attributable to our personal friendship than any credit that I deserve for being impressive. I have always had great admiration for the hon. member, despite some of the speeches he has made. I have great personal admiration for the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: I know that the hon. member for Temiscouata will recall that on several occasions I have urged assistance to farmers, because I was a farmer, and I am still a farmer. Some hon. members may not think that I do much farming, but if you saw my farm you would know that there is plenty left to do. I know that many have posed as farmers in this house over the years, but I think I still farm more land than some of these hon. gentlemen who are interrupting me. However, I am not going to brag about how well I do it.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemoni):: It would be better for you not to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
i


William Earl Rowe: As the hon. member for
Temiscouata has said, I urged that assistance-


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask the hon. member to leave my leader alone.


William Earl Rowe: That is good politics. Every party needs a buffer. I do not care how much you attack my leader, because he is capable of looking after himself.
I have on different occasions, Mr. Speaker, urged that we should have some more regulations on the sale of farm products. I know the hon. member will recall that I have urged -in fact I have heard him urge-that we should develop home markets, and a reasonable degree of protection for the farmers. That has been the trend of both parties in this house for many years. But today the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his party have gone one better. They have fixed the resale price; they have resale price maintenance on wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not handle wheat.


William Earl Rowe: No, you do not handle wheat, but I remember so well that when you were getting handlers to handle it you certainly mishandled the issue to the extent of half a billion dollars of cost to the farmers of Canada. I can well recall-


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order. Now that the hon. gentleman has paid such a nice tribute to me in my humble capacity I want to rise to a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I may be permitted to rise to a point of order, I will hear the hon. member for Temiscouata afterwards.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who has the floor is not speaking directly to the bill at the moment, but I do not think we can blame him entirely for that. Hon. members have asked questions which he has been constrained to answer. I would think the hon. member would have less difficulty in discussing the bill if there were not so many interruptions.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, according to the order paper the question before the house is:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Justice for the second reading of Bill No. 36, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act. and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell, and on the amendment to the amendment of Mrs. Fairclough.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Probably the hon. member can raise the point of order after the hon. member who has the floor has finished his speech. It hardly seems fair to interrupt at this time.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was explaining the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order is that we must discuss the suggestion of our hon. lady friend.


George Alexander Drew: That has been disposed of.


Mr. Speaker:: I might inform the hon. member that a number of hon. members were late in their arrival today because the trains have not been running on time. I would say to him however that this morning we disposed of the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough).


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very glad. That is progress.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Duf-ferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) may proceed.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) observes progress made in his absence. I certainly feel complimented by the hon. member and by others in the house because at this late date in the debate, at a time when the Prime Minister fears that the debate may go back to one that is not quite relevant to the issue, whether or not my remarks are relevant it would appear that at least they seem to attract the attention and the interest of experienced members such as the hon. member for Temiscouata.
However, I see the time at my disposal has almost expired, and I do not propose to detain the house at greater length. If the interruptions were counted, I am not sure whether I have spoken my full time. Then it may be that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) who, I believe, is to follow me, would rather listen to me than say what he is going to say.
I feel this issue is far more important than many hon. members think it is. There is no emergency. I say positively there is no emergency. There is no member sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, including the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who can make people believe that this is a national emergency which must be settled before the new year. There are other matters on the order paper far more important than this one.


Mr. Marlin:: Have you read Mr. Hannam's letter?
Combines Investigation Act


William Earl Rowe: I have read Mr. Hannam's letter. But in view of the fact that this morning Mr. Speaker ruled that one must not mention in the house something that has happened outside the house, I think perhaps I am not free to refer to the letter. However, since the minister has made the interjection, I think I should be permitted to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no objection to the hon. member replying to the interjection by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), but I hope he does not propose to read any letter that may have been received.


William Earl Rowe: No, I certainly would not impose anything like that on the house. I think his letter was unsound-and I say this to those whom he supports so diligently. I say it because I represent as large a rural riding as any member. I know the farmers, and I do not think what Mr. Hannam has written represents the viewpoint of the majority of farmers in Canada, when he says that while resale price maintenance is not good for the little storekeeper on the corner it is good for the farmer in the sale of wheat and other foodstuffs.
I do not think he is consistent. But I have noticed that he blows both hot and cold, so long as the air goes toward the support of the Liberal party.


Mr. Martin:: The farmers won't like that.


William Earl Rowe: Your farmers may not, but I will speak for my farmers. As my leader said this morning, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; and if it is sauce for the farmers in the country it is sauce for the little storekeeper at the corner store.


An hon. Member:: What about the consumer?


William Earl Rowe: What about the consumer? I think I have explained that it is just as likely to raise the price to the consumer-even if the Prime Minister does not know what it will do. So if you know all the retailers are going to lower their prices, you can tell Mr. Hannam that. I cannot tell my people that prices will go up-I cannot tell them what they are going to do. But I know that, in connection with the standard brands involved, this will not bring stability to the drug trade and to the small retail stores. It will not bring confidence to the consumer-it will not do anything for him. It will not give any assurance at all to the manufacturer. It will stand as a threat by way of higher prices, and it will upset trade-just the same as the Minister of Agriculture upset trade in the

Combines Investigation Act butter and egg business, and in almost everything he has touched where there has been government interference.
The hour has struck in this country when you should give business back to the businessman. As I said at the outset, the big businessmen of this country are not as great a threat to our economy and our democratic way of enterprise as are the little politicians. Let the shoemaker stick to his last. It has been said that he governs best who governs least.
The more we have of government interference, the worse it is. The hon. member for Temiscouata, and others who have sat in the house for a quarter of a century, know very well that every time you meddle with business you confuse it. As I said at the outset today, we are in a time of great prosperity in this country, although there is another war being waged now-whether it is hot or cold; and it is hot enough for some of our boys.
But I say that, with three wars inside of half a century, we know the effects of artificial sustenance of the economy. There are certain companies, certain industries and certain people making money. Our labouring men are receiving more wages than ever before; but at the same time they are paying a terrific cost to live. They are worried about what is waiting around the corner. We have seen a depression before, and we know what happened to the little retail store keeper. From my own personal experience I know that those storekeepers carried the accounts of poor families at a time when the large stores in Toronto, Montreal and Quebec city would not carry them.
These are community people. They help the Red Cross, the Roman Catholic church charities, the Protestant church charities, the societies. They have been the leaders in their communities. I am concerned today about the thousands of small retailers who make up a great volume of the middle class people- more concerned about them that I am about the big chain stores which are doing well, and will continue to do well. It is not in the interests of either of these groups that they be disturbed in this way. It is not to their interest to disturb experienced business that has operated successfully for half a century.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I have exceeded my time, but perhaps the extra time would be accounted for by the interruptions.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Speaker, I was not privileged, as was the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) some sixteen years ago, to hear the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) make that memorable speech. I thought the hon. member carried it too far today when he started to


deliver us a lecture on closure. I think probably he is the only man sitting in the House of Commons today who voted in favour of closure at that time. So my hon. friend speaks with more expertness than I would. If he is not a great expert as a farmer, he is certainly an expert on closure.
My hon. friend started out by saying that the government had dabbled with farm markets and upset the trade of the country. I saw a press report this morning which indicated that farm income for the first nine months of this year was up 25 per cent over what it was last year. And when my hon. friend tells us that Mr. Hannam, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, does not speak for the farmers of this country, then I say to him that he had better change his own description in the Parliamentary Guide because it is indicated that, in addition to being a manufacturer he is also a farmer. If my hon. friend is described as a farmer he must know who Mr. Hannam is.


Alphonse Fournier: You
must mean the stud book.


William Earl Rowe: I never dabble with Hansard.


David Arnold Croll: I for one welcome this legislation.


Arza Clair Casselman: Tell us about the purple gang. You know what I mean.


David Arnold Croll: I do not know what you mean.


William Earl Rowe: Go ahead.


David Arnold Croll: You must be out of your mind.


Arza Clair Casselman: You must have been then.


David Arnold Croll: I do not know what the hon. member is saying.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Arnold Croll: I welcome this legislation
because it is in the best Liberal tradition. Historically and traditionally we have been opposed to trusts, cartels and combines. Today we are considering the kind of legislation we ought to be considering. I point out to the government that never was the line of demarcation between political parties so well drawn as it is at the present time. As a matter of fact, we should emphasize and re-emphasize to the country just exactly what is our position and what is the position of the official opposition.
I should like to say a word about the committee. Some harsh things have been said in this house about the chairman of the committee. This house has already had an example of delay, filibustering and obstructionist tactics. The committee was faced with the same tactics from the beginning.

There was stalling and delay on points of order and questions of privilege. There was constant repetition almost from the beginning.
The chairman had a little greater scope than the Speaker in this house and, being able to make some of his own rules as he went along, he pleaded with the members of the committee, he cajoled, compromised and did everything possible in order to get on with the hearings. All I can say about that committee is that it was a most interesting and important committee, but if I had had an ulcer it would have been aggravated at the end of the sittings.
So far as I am concerned, I do not think it would be wise to apply closure. Let them talk; let them continue to talk, because one thing is becoming very clear: the people of this country are beginning to be aware that there is a great issue at stake. During the week end when I was at home for a few days I found that this was an important topic of discussion. The consumer is becoming aware that we are trying to do something for him, to do something for his benefit, while the Tories are stopping us from doing it. He is not very clear as to what we are trying to do, but there is very little clarity across the way in the opposition benches.
I give my hon. friends some gratuitous advice. They are not only not making friends, they are not influencing people.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) gave some advice to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) who did not take it. The hon. member said that when they had made their point, as they had in dealing with Bretton Woods, a vote should take place. He told the house they had continued until they had made their point. As it turns out, he and his party were right as far as Bretton Woods was concerned and I think the rest of us were wrong. I am speaking now only for myself. If there had been any political benefit, they would have received it. The trouble was that nobody in the country understood what Bretton Woods was about. I must confess that I did not understand clearly what it was all about. I am not going to ask the hon. member to explain it at this time. Some day when we have more leisure I am going to ask the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) to do that.


Mr. Low:: I would be about as much in order as other hon. members have been.


David Arnold Croll: My own thought is that when we come back after New Year's the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should make an issue of this bill. At that particular time he should also bring down a budget. There is nothing I would like better than to go to the country
Combines Investigation Act on this particular issue. The leader of the opposition smiles, but let me tell him that this is the first clear issue I have seen in years. The Tories would not return enough members to occupy a telephone booth.
Neither in the speech from the throne nor subsequently in this house did the Prime Minister promise to pull a rabbit out of a hat for the consumers of this country. What he did say, or what he implied was-


An hon. Member:: Be careful now.


David Arnold Croll: -that big business and business would not be allowed to gang up on the consumer. I think I know as much about the cost of living as any other member and I feel that with the measures that we have already taken this measure will at least take the zip out of the zooming high cost of living. I was not here to hear the leader of the opposition tell the house about the possibility that we of the Liberal party-we are glad to share it with the C.C.F. and the Social Credit, as there is enough glory for all-will get the political benefit if the cost of living falls in January and February.
It is normal in this country to have bargain sales in January and' February, at which time the merchants dispose of old stock they were not able to sell in December. That is the most normal thing that could possibly happen. This egislation was not forecast at Christmastime; it was forecast on October 9 and it could have been passed in the early part of November. It was not planned to have it go into effect at this particular period.
What is worrying the leader of the opposition is that there has been a certain amount of buyer resistance in the country. There has been a certain amount of anticipation over what will happen when we abolish price maintenance. The natural thing that will happen is that people will dispose of their stocks as quickly as possible and prices will fall. There is not any question about that at all.
It seems to me that with the measures we have already taken it is inevitable that the cost of living must come down. January and February are the usual months when we have sales. What I think is worrying him is that the cost of living may continue to drop in March as it may well do because business knows that there will be a budget in April and that it is inevitable there will be reductions in taxes, including excise tax, as has already been predicted on many occasions. By that time people who are planning for April, May and June will be cutting their prices once again.
There are actually three schools of thought today throughout the world on the question
2402	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act of the cost of living. There is the British school of thought which believes in direct controls, subsidies and rationing.


An hon. Member:: Bankruptcy.


David Arnold Croll: That is their method of approach. The United States on the other hand have a mixed system. They have adopted the British idea of partial controls, and they have also gone in for credit controls. The result is that their best friends tell them they have messed it up. They have grey and black markets that are larger than the normal market. On the other hand we in this country have taken an entirely different course, that of credit restrictions and the imposition of taxes for the purpose of taking money out of circulation in order to control the cost of living. We have used every conceivable method of trying to bring down the cost of living, and the measure before the house is just another one. How much good it will do one cannot foretell at the present time, but it may be it is the straw that is now necessary. It may do a great deal more than we anticipate, or we would not have the kind of opposition that is being put forward against this bill. There is a great deal of worry across the way.


Mr. Fraser:: Because everything the government has done so far has put up the cost of living.


David Arnold Croll: Last month the cost of living rose -8 per cent.


Mr. Sinclair:: It rose -8 points.


David Arnold Croll: It is anticipated that within a very short time, perhaps even this month, we will be able to both halt and hold the rise in the cost of living. If we are able to do so we will be the first ones in the western world to be successful. If we are able to hold it for two or three months the people of this country will come to realize that the government knows what it is doing and they will have the kind of confidence that will bring down the cost of living even more rapidly than before. For the first six months of this year I think business will be large in volume. Perhaps profits will not be as great as formerly but I think the time has come for us to tell business that it must stop acting as if it had been born with a silver spoon in its mouth and must forever be reaching for an even larger ladle.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was very much concerned about what the bill will do. Will it bring the reductions that we anticipate? I should like to ask him what he is worrying about. If it does not bring reductions it helps him politically and he ought to welcome anything that helps him
[Mr. Croll.)

politically. On the other hand, if it is a good measure then it will redound to our credit. He made a statement later in reply to a question I asked, which left the inference that 1 was a mere politician and he was a statesman, although he did not say he was a statesman. I remember the answer Mitch Hepburn made one time in the legislature of Ontario when faced with a similar situation. He said, "The politician gets elected".


George Alexander Drew: Just so that we may keep the chronology clear and know what measure of respect the hon. member had for Mr. Hepburn's views at that time, was that before or after Mr. Hepburn dismissed him as a minister in his cabinet?


David Arnold Croll: Let me tell the hon. member that Mr. Hepburn never dismissed me.


George Alexander Drew: Oh yes, he did.


David Arnold Croll: I resigned from his cabinet, as my hon. friend well knows. It is a matter of record. I am sorry that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) is not in the house because in his speech today he said that he welcomed criticism of the leader of the opposition. No man in the province of Ontario criticized the leader of the opposition more than the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. I remind the leader of the opposition -that when he was organizer for the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, who was leading the Conservatives in Ontario the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe found one day that he was not the leader of the party. He found that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was the leader and he was out in the cold. Let us get back to the bill.


George Alexander Drew: I can understand why Hepburn got rid of the hon. member.


David Arnold Croll: This measure is one that should have been introduced a long time ago. I think it writes new basic freedoms into the law of the land. It gives the consumer the right of choice and freedom of prices. It gives the retailer freedom of prices and of services. So far as the manufacturer is concerned, we withdraw from him freedom of control which carries with it some freedom to exploit. By passing this legislation we solve one problem but we must not deny the fact that we create another problem. It is one that has been referred to in the house on many occasions. We have got to meet it now or later. We open the door to abuses on the part of corporations with long pockets and short memories. We open the door to anti-social predatory groups who can slash, cut, juggle, unload, and take over smaller businesses.
The group, consisting of Eaton's, Morgan's, the Hudson's Bay Company and others,

endorse this legislation. Frankly we were embarrassed by their endorsement. Anyone who has heard the speeches made in the house will realize that the name of Eaton's has been tossed around like a hot potato. Nobody wants any part of them. Even the Tories are trying to divorce themselves from having anything to do with the organization. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that the situation with respect to such practices would be watched closely and would be under constant review. I am going to be more blunt and firm than becomes a middle bencher and say to people contemplating cut-throat competition: Don't do it. I will give them the very best political, common-sense and economic reason why they should not do it. If the large retail and chain stores have any intention of stepping out of line once the legislation is passed, cutting, slashing prices and taking over small businesses, let them think again. I will tell them why ini the most practical way I can, and in a way which I think they should understand.
The druggist in my community and in every other community belongs to my lodge andi my luncheon club. I see him regularly. The grocer in my community belongs to the Legion and the community association, and we worship together. The jeweler and electrical dealer sit down with me and play a game of cards, perhaps poker, once a month.


An hon. Member:: Canasta.


David Arnold Croll: My friend insists it is canasta. The hardware merchant, the clothier and I sometimes fish and play golf together. Some of these people belong to my Liberal organization, attend my meetings and are my supporters. Before starting out on their new adventure, these large organizations should keep in mind that they are just institutions. They are impersonal, cold, aloof and suspect. If they deal unfairly with our friends and our neighbours, we in this house shall see that a proper remedy is applied.


An hon. Member:: Why wait for that?


David Arnold Croll: We wait for it, because I do
not think they will do it. I do not think they are silly enough to try it, but they may. Until such time as the situation arises, I am prepared to go along with this measure.
I did attempt to introduce a measure to deal with the loss leader but it was thought that we should not deal with it for the moment in other than this fashion. I am prepared to go along with that. I believe we shall have ample time to deal with the problem, because the house will only be out of session about two months at the most.
Combines Investigation Act What I am saying is that I hope it is clearly understood that if these large predatory interests damage our merchants unfairly, we in this house do not intend to stand by and see our neighbours impoverished. My suggestion to these corporations is to live and let live. They will live longer and be a great deal happier. Let me say another word to these people if they have such thoughts. There comes a time when profits cannot be so important. As a matter of fact, I have never seen an Eaton's statement in my life. I do not think they publish them. Now and then I read a Hudson's Bay statement. If I had stock in the company it would give me a great deal of pleasure-it does anyway-to see the company making progress. Surely, there comes a time when the business reputation of the company is worth far more than the profits that could be obtained through acquiring another store or another outlet. If we find that these predatory interests, these antisocial interests, are attempting to exercise a power which may be unfair under the new act, then we can only come to the conclusion that they are fighting for power. That is the point I want to make. I want to say to them, and I think it can be fairly said on behalf of this side of the house, that no matter how fine their characters, no matter how high their motives, no matter how excellent their ethics, and no matter how air-conditioned their offices or how elegant the appointments of those offices, power which affects the economic health of the people belongs, not in some skyscraper, penthouse or board room, but in this chamber and must be exercised from this chamber. If these people who have these anti-social views want to be labelled public enemy No. 1, they know how they can do so. They are not too popular in this country today. It may be that they will not try to become less popular.
May I say a word to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson)? I have heard some stories, and I do not feel happy about them. They are concerned with the glass and match prosecutions. The government did a good job in prosecuting and fining these combines, but I have reason to believe that the story I have been told is a correct one. It has been said that immediately after being fined the match people raised their prices, as did the glass people; that the raises were uniform and identical, and the consumers of Canada are paying the fine without the loss of a dime to those companies. I believe the penalties under this act are not adequate. There are too many
2404

Combines Investigation Act striped-pants directors who ought to be provided with striped coats and a number in addition at government expense. In that way the act could be enforced.
I am not going to say any more, except this. My friends across the way are making a great to-do about the little retailer. One would think that the little retailer was looking to them for friendship, comfort and help. I want to remind them, and I shall remind the little retailer too, that the best days these retailers experienced were the last sixteen years under a Liberal regime. This country grew and grew in those years. As for the Tories, they were in power from 1930 to 1935, and the little retailer knows exactly what happened to him during that period. In everything we have done we have attempted to build up the middle class in this country. We have attempted to tax in such a manner that the middle class has a definite position in the community. We have attempted to make opportunities available to the middle class retailer. In the last sixteen years he has grown by leaps and bounds. There was never any intention, now or at any time in the future, of this government abandoning these retailers who, we think, are the salt of the earth and the backbone of the community. In the past we have given them every opportunity, and we shall continue to protect them in the future. To have my friends opposite come forward as the champions of this class is as phony as the statement they made that they are not really opposed to the bill, but merely want more information about the problem. With all the delaying tactics, the filibustering and obstructionism, I find that the position of the Tory party on this bill may be summed up in these words appearing on page 2110 of Hansard for December 17, 1951:
... I wish to emphasize that we are not taking a strong position either for or against the merits of the price maintenance system as presently practised.
All I am saying to the house is, think what could have happened if they had taken a strong position and told us where they stand on the bill.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I imagine we have all listened, as I have, with considerable interest to what the member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) has said. I do not understand that the word "demagogue" is an unparliamentary word. I believe it just means a certain type of argument, and I would say that the member for Spadina was in one of his demagogic moods. I should like to take up two or three of the things he said.
First of all, we heard that old phrase which is so familiar. He commended the bill by

saying it was in the "best Liberal tradition."
I always pass that up because it is one of those phrases people do get used to, and they use it often. I suppose that sometimes it has a meaning to them, but I am not going to waste the time of the house on that. Then, the hon. member put in a plug for the chairman of the committee, and I was interested when he said that the chairman of the committee was handy at "making his rules". I think perhaps he said his own rules. It seems to me that confirms better than any of us could have wished the complaints which have been made about the conduct of the committee. The chairman was handy at making his own rules as he went along. The hon. member also used the word "cajole". I do not press that unduly. I suppose it means to wheedle or persuade people by various means, but falling short of anything improper or false. I might describe it by saying it is an attempt to weave his way through. Perhaps the most interesting part of his speech to me was when he dealt with the matter which obviously embarrassed him a good deal. What I mean is this. We had all the old stuff which is so familiar, in the best manner, about our party -that is, the party to which I belong-being the friend of big business. I think one of the most interesting impostures-and it has not always been unsuccessful-is for the Liberal party in all these years to have held itself out as the big brother of the poor whereas anyone who knew his onions, Mr. Speaker, has known all these years that they were the little brother of the rich, right along. There never was a more barefaced attempt at making the worse appear to be the better reason. But he is embarrassed-


An hon. Member:: Quit kidding yourself.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you. I know you are a real help and you say that sincerely. But he was embarrassed, and he was embarrassed by some of his friends. We are often embarrassed by our friends even more than by our enemies. He realizes that this legislation, while it has met the criticism of small business on the whole-I think one might say almost wholly of small business and some substantial amount of bigger and ever bigger business-still there are some of the colossuses, if that is the proper plural, of business which approve of this legislation, and the hon. member for Spadina was a little bit embarrassed by that fact.


An hon. Member:: Colossuses?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am ready to be corrected as to that plural by any hon.

member competent to do so. As I say, the hon. member was embarrassed by this and he resorted to a technique which interested me greatly. He delivered some remarks which seemed to me to be a kind of cross between a sort of sermon and a threat.


John George Diefenbaker: A homily.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, a
homily. That is the word. He spent some time on that. He warned them of the dreadful things which would happen if they took advantage of their strong position. He did not say what those dreadful things were; but I suppose when you are in the "best Liberal tradition" you do not have to say those things; you just know that somehow or other they will happen. But he was obviously embarrassed. Then, he got away from vague threats to business and he came to a definite threat to us. He tried to make us shake in our shoes. He tried to reduce us to a kind of dithering state by threatening us with an election. We are going to have an election; that is what he threatened us with.


An hon. Member:: You know what happened to you last time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am interested in that remark, coming as it does from an hon. member who, I think, knows a good deal about elections. I am sure we feel that it is not a matter which should be wholly neglected. But at any rate he held that threat out to us and we were supposed to be duly terrified by it. I am reminded that perhaps we should not be as worried as he thinks we ought to be because in the last year we have had a good deal of indication that the electors are not entirely averse to us or to the things which in our small way we have tried to stand for.
I have referred to the remarks of the hon. member for Spadina. I do not think he would want me to say any more about them, and I do not intend to do so. I would have been embarrassed in speaking at all today if it had not been for what the Prime Minister said this morning. On Thursday last I had an idea that the Prime Minister, when he mentioned that word "closure", had reached the stage which apparently the hon. member for Spadina has now reached. The hon. member for Spadina told us that we were guilty of filibuster and obstruction and all kinds of terrible things. I was interested to note what the Prime Minister said this morning. I suppose the Prime Minister still speaks for his party when he stands up. It appears that he does. Therefore, on the whole, I am prepared to accept what the Prime Minister says in preference to what the hon. member for Spadina says. What the Prime Minister 94699-1531	[DOT]
Combines Investigation Act said this morning was to the effect that the discussion on Friday had been fruitful; I think that is what he said. I felt pleased about that remark, because I contributed my own half pint to that discussion. When the Prime Minister spoke well of it and said that it had been fruitful, I felt encouraged. I must point out, however, that even the Prime Minister is not wholly free from inconsistency because it would look as if we were not reasonable on Wednesday or Thursday but that on Friday we became reasonable. It would appear that on Thursday when the Prime Minister spoke about closure, he must have felt that we were perhaps not being wholly reasonable; because as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, this morning he used this phrase "reasonable human beings under normal conditions", and when he used that phrase I thought the implication or the innuendo was that there was danger that we might not qualify for that description; in other words, that we were becoming unreasonable and that we were not under normal conditions. I was therefore glad when the Prime Minister came out flatfootedly and said that the debate had been useful. So for my own purpose-and the hon. member for Spadina will perhaps forgive me-I am going to dismiss what he said about obstruction and filibuster as just a lot of-I do not want to use a rough word, so I will just call it-hooey, and I hope he will not mind.
I am going to ask a question which has been asked here many times. It is this. Why are we here today? Some people will say:	We
are here because you in the opposition have been unreasonable and you brought us here.


Some hon. Members:: Quite true.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I accept that view from those who express it, making the necessary qualification for the source from which it comes. But, speaking for myself, I want to say that I think we are here in a real sense to protect the rights of the minority. I think it is perfectly clear that whatever else we have or have not done, we have done a bit of a job on that score; because it is perfectly clear that the attitude towards closure today is entirely different from what it was a week ago today. I suppose that change is partly because of the Christmas spirit; as the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) has said, partly because the Prime Minister, like the rest of us, has been at home and the world perhaps looks a little bit different after Christmas. However that may be, closure was certainly threatened last Thursday, and we had every right to govern ourselves accordingly. I can only repeat that I am glad of what the Prime Minister said about the debate on Friday.

Combines Investigation Act
A good deal has been said about urgency. I think it is relevant, and I want to say a word or two about it, because we are not here for fun. None of us wanted to come back here today. The only reasons that could possibly bring us here would be if there was urgency. I listened with care to the Prime Minister when he spoke this morning-I am sorry I have not had the chance to read his speech since then-but I do not think he made much of a case for urgency. It seems to me that he could not make much of a case for urgency when all that he could find to say about this measure which we are here to pass was that he thought it might do a bit of good; and if it was able to do any good, we ought to have it. I am not so sure that I would not agree with that remark up to a point and before I sit down I want to try to say something on that score. I hope at any rate I will make people believe that I am sincere when I say that if anyone were able to make me believe that this bill would bring down the cost of living, I would vote for it and advocate it. But as X say-and I shall try to say a little bit more about this in a minute-nothing that happened in that committee provides any evidence to that end. As a matter of fact, while the committee was not allowed to have enough evidence as distinct from opinion in order to reach a conclusion on anything, I would say that the balance of evidence was in favour of the argument that resale price maintenance actually kept costs down. Let me say this in passing because really there is a suggestion-I am sorry to say the Prime Minister used the word this morning-of wrongdoing. I will come to that matter a little bit later on. We are getting very near the stage, as the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry) pointed out the other night, where we are arraigning, we are putting in the dock -some of us are-a whole group of people, and really charging them with being a lot of profiteers, without a word of evidence. I will come back to that a little later too.
On this question of urgency I want to read a word or two. I read it the other day, but I want to bring it back here today because it is relevant and it is important, and it has never been answered. These are the words of Senator Lambert, in which he said in effect that the committee was not being allowed to do what it was set up to do. I will read his own words so there will be no danger of a wrong paraphrase. At page 248 he said:
I do not suggest that this committee should undertake as wide and as detailed an inquiry as the Curtis commission did, but I do submit that the MacQuarrie report does not begin to approach, and I do not think their investigation has begun to approach, from the public point of view, and from


the point of view of a democratic interest in this whole subject, the work that was done by the Curtis commission. The MacQuarrie report is a very well stated summary; someone has compared it to an obiter dictum of the supreme court on arguments, and I think that is what it is. There is not a word of evidence given in it. There is a summary cf arguments, pro and con, on this subject, but, to my way of thinking, it is something that invites me, as a member of parliament, to reflect back to the people of this country public opinion, to which I am responsible, some degree of evidence to support the conclusions of the MacQuarrie report.
Here we are, Mr. Speaker, being asked to act without evidence, as the hon. senator says, who was once a high official in the Liberal party, and who is respected quite apart from that-I will not say in spite of that-and his statement has not been answered, and I submit it cannot be answered successfully. Yet, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) says that we are guilty of obstruction because we say: Let us have the evidence. We are going to create a crime; we are going to establish a new crime, which is going to turn a lot of people into criminals unless they alter their way of doing business. We are doing that without having the evidence. How a great lawyer like the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) can reconcile that with his background, I do not know.
What is the urgency? There has been no real suggestion of urgency. The only urgency which we all feel-and I imagine it is not confined to our side of the house, though it is only on this side of the house that it will be expressed-the real urgency is the need of the government to meet the indignation and rising disturbance of mind about the high cost of living. The government is terribly anxious to do something, or to look like doing something, and of course they will be clever in making it appear they have done something. No one denies their cleverness. Indeed they will be clever at making it look as if it is going to be of great help to the consumer; and if-as we all hope and expect, or at any rate all hope-there is a little let-down in prices, why of course we will have the propaganda machine up and down the country saying that this is what did it. Whether anyone believes it or not, that is another matter.
Let us look for a little while at the merits of this measure. It was first of all put forward as a measure against inflation; but I submit that that has been practically forgotten. The Prime Minister again stated his view on that this morning, and I shall not take the time of the house to go over it. But, as the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) has already said, no one could describe it as warmer than lukewarm. The

Prime Minister was very frank and fair in what he said-I mean as to the great merits, to put it mildly, of any expectation he had. Indeed, he went further than that and he practically said: We do not know what will happen; we will try, and hope for the best.
What about the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson)? I have gone through the minister's speech. I will not pretend I read every word because it was a long speech, but I have not been able to find in there any serious argument in favour of this bill as an antiinflation measure. I hesitate to say there is no reference to it, but I have found practically nothing. Certainly, there is no serious attempt to make the suggestion that this is going to affect the cost of living, which is what it was set up for. There will of course be every effort to try to put that across to the people.
Now, what about the merits of this thing? We have to get away from the inflation side and we have to regard it purely on its merits as a reform which is to be brought into the conduct of business. We are in a rather unusual position here. I hope I shall not be saying anything improper because the Prime Minister after all has spoken on this. I hope I will not be saying anything improper if I say that I think that much the most effective speeches made outside the ranks of this party in opposing this measure were made by the hon. member for St. James and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson). Now, I would be ready to take a chance if, for example, this matter had to be referred let us say to the supreme court-I would be almost prepared to take a chance on letting it go on the speeches pro and con made within the four corners of the Liberal party. When I say "the four corners of the Liberal party" I am including the hon. member for Comox-Alberni within them for the moment. Perhaps I do him an injustice, but at any rate I think I have made my point clear.
I come to the Prime Minister because he used one or two phrases this morning that astonished me. They would have astonished me in any event, but they astonished me as coming from a great lawyer accustomed to weighing his words and accustomed to the accurate use of language. He said something like this. He referred to "recognized practices which should be under restraint". I think these were the words: "recognized practices which should be under restraint." I ask, what evidence is there of that? Let us look at the people who have taken a part in this. First of all I want to look at what one might call the principle of the thing, and I am going to read again briefly from
Combines Investigation Act what was said by Mr. Justice Brandeis, because he was a great judge, who looked at this thing from the point of view not only of common sense but of law.
As I hear some of the things that are said I wonder whether the people are bearing in mind, when they use these critical words, that they are speaking about practices which have been legal and valid and regarded as not only legal but morally right. I wonder whether they are bearing in mind that they are speaking of practices which have the sanction of law, the specific sanction of statute law, in 45 out of the 48 states. I wonder whether they are bearing in mind that there is a report, and a very able report, from Britain, a report of the committee on resale price maintenance. Again, without reading at length from it I do want to read one or two things, because I say you would have thought that the consumer was the subject of a virtual conspiracy; that he was being rooked right and left; that this was clear and recognized, and that the only thing that remained to be done was to right a great wrong. Let me read briefly, Mr. Speaker, from this report composed by able men after long investigation. I shall read from page 4. They say:
The representatives-
I read this particularly because no one who is entitled to be out of an asylum would hesitate for one minute to vote for this if he believed it was going to have a major effect on the cost of living, if he believed it was going to right wrongs which are clearly evident. Therefore it is wise to remind ourselves that it is not merely the retailers, not merely the people who are making their living by selling, who are interested in this thing. The consumers have spoken out in no uncertain way. Let me read this from page 4, section 19:
The representatives of the various women's organizations who gave evidence before us were without exception strongly in favour of branding.
"Without exception". Does that sound as if the consumers were having a gigantic fraud or a gigantic piracy practised against them? Then I go on:
They found it convenient when shopping not to have to examine everything they bought in order to assess its quality; they had found that the containers in which branded goods are normally sold helped to keep the article in a satisfactory condition.
I could read at length from this report showing similar opinions. As I said the other day, even Mr. Henry Smith, who puts in a

Combines Investigation Act strong reservation, nevertheless goes along with this report which says:
We recommend that no action should be taken which would deprive an individual producer of the power to prescribe and enforce resale prices for goods bearing his brand.
I wish to read briefly, as I said a moment ago, from page 2199 of Hansard, where I quoted Brandeis in the book called "The Brandeis Guide to the Modern World". At page 213 of that book he says:
I think it is important that we should develop the right of producers of trademarked articles, growers as well as manufacturers, to establish by contract the price at which their products shall be sold.
And then on the same page:
The right to fix the retail selling price is not an injury but an aid to business, so far as the particular branch of business is competitive. The cry against retail price fixing is based uopn a misconception.
There is a statement of one of the ablest and most broad-minded leaders of American legal and social thought in the last quarter century. No one will deny that.
I now come to the railwaymen. I was amazed that this morning the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) appeared to include the Trades and Labour Congress as in favour of this measure. I wish therefore to read from the evidence of Mr. Bengough who, I presume, speaks for the Trades and Labour Congress, and who was anything but sold on this.' Mr. Bengough is a man who looks at things in>
a judgmatical way, and who tries to arrive at a conclusion after, not before, he knows the facts. That is what we are being asked to do today, and I think it is desirable that we should remember that. We are being asked to create a new crime without having evidence, to create a set of potential criminals without having evidence.
Here is what Mr. Wismer said, in reply to questioning by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming):
Q. May I ask Mr. Wismer if he feels that this so-called practice of price maintenance is a detriment to or perhaps in harmony with public interest?
A. I think we can say this, in so far as the deal is made privately and enforced privately we would have to say No, but where it is a general practice I think we would have to have a lot more information.
Well, does this support this legislation? Does that sound as if the Trades and Labour Congress were supporting this legislation? They have the sense to stop, look and listen. They have the sense to say, "Let us have the facts from sound, hard-headed businessmen." Labour men approach this matter in what I think is the proper manner, whereas some skilled legislators do not.

Then I should like to read from the questioning of Mr. Bengough by the hon. member for Eglinton, as follows:
You will recall it purports to propose blanket prohibition on resale prices. Would you think that is a proper and desirable way of going about this matter, that we have blanket prohibition, or if we are going to have legislation on it should it be left to determine whether in the particular case the particular type of agreement is in the given circumstances harmful to the public interest or not?
Mr. Bengough answered, first of all, "It would have to be flexible." Then the hon. member for Eglinton said, "You wouldn't favour a general prohibition," and Mr. Ben-gough's answer was "No".
So much for Mr. Bengough. Let us see what the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry) says. The hon. member made a fairly stiff attack on the government. He has something to say too. I must say the hon. member is an interesting study. He made an able speech. One might say that he has a good drive but very little follow through. He announced that he was going to vote with his party, although he was not in favour of the legislation. Well, I suppose one must admire the iron-clad discipline, the Prussian discipline, this indicates. I suppose it has its advantages. But it would be such a relief, such excitement, if one of the hon. members on the other side of the house would not only express his views but act upon them. However, I am not the keeper of the conscience of the hon. member for St. James, and perhaps he would not want me to be.


Sarto Fournier: You
can be sure of that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You speak as an expert, I am sure. At any rate, let me speak for myself. I will not undertake to be the keeper of his conscience.
He has a feeling for the businessmen, because his constituency is full of them. He says:
Those of our colleagues, trades-people, merchants, druggists, whom we had at first accepted as sound people and men well regarded in their communities since they seem to command the respect of the majority, which as the minister himself pointed out yesterday still rules-these colleagues, sir, upon my return regained some of their temporarily lost stature.
The hon. member spoke in a slightly allegorical vein. Nevertheless he makes clear his conviction that he does not think much of the idea. Then he goes on to say:
Clad as they had been in the land of make-believe in what to the fastidious were the somewhat repulsive and repellent tatters of Simon Legree and his French counterpart, Harpagon . . .
And then he goes on to say:
May I tell you, sir, that it was most gratifying upon my return to solid ground to be able to con-

elude that they were more than fully entitled to the original respect and tribute which has been paid each of them in his community.
As I said a moment ago, and I now repeat, in this legislation there is a proposal to create new crimes. As I indicated, no less a person than Senator Lambert said that this conclusion was reached without evidence. I wish to add a word to stress what I said1 a moment ago about the fact that this practice of branded goods has been accepted by enabling legislation in forty-five out of the forty-eight states. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) pointed that out most effectively the other day. There seemed to be the suggestion that the law which prevails in forty-five of the forty-eight states had been imposed upon the people while they were not looking, that it was not democratic and that, somehow or another, it was not what they wanted.
Indeed, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made some rather satirical references to the way in which American legislatures and governors are sometimes elected. However that may be, if the fact was that perhaps three out of the forty-eight states had passed this legislation that argument might have some weight. But when forty-five out of the forty-eight states have passed this legislation, when it is practically unanimous, it is pretty hard to believe that in a considerable number of those forty-five states these fair trade laws do not represent what the people want, what they approve of and what they have found to be to their advantage.
As I said a moment ago, I think there is only one thing which could have justified dragging us back here and passing this legislation under the myth or the plea that it is a matter of urgency; that is evidence which would indicate, I say "evidence" advisedly, that it was going to perform-I will not say miracles because, heaven knows, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) did not suggest miracles-but that it was going to be effective.
Anyone who will read this mass of evidence must agree that not only is there no adequate evidence to support the view on which this bill is based, but that actually the balance of evidence which was allowed to come before the committee indicated quite the contrary, that the passing of the legislation would in all probability cause injury. I am not going to Use alarmist figures about thousands and tens of thousands of retailers being destroyed, because I do not think it is necessary to do that in order to maintain the argument; but no serious person in this house -can doubt that there are tens of thousands of
Combines Investigation Act these people who feel that they are going to be injured. Anyone looking at the situation and reading such evidence as has been given knows that there will be a set-up for pricecutting. Whether it is fair to say that the government wants to precipitate that, I do not know.
No one doubts that a day is coming when prices will tend to go downward. One of the things I object to most strongly is something which has been said before in this house. I indicated the other day that no less a person than the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) seemed to picture the manufacturers as sitting in their ivory towers setting prices which the consumer had to accept. It is not merely a classroom statement, it is not merely a statement by economists, to say that in a very real sense it is the consumer who fixes the price. Anyone who knows business knows that manufacturers do not fix prices and then go off and forget about them for months. They are studying the market from day to day. They know that if the price is at level A they will sell so much. They know that if they can bring it down a little they will sell more. Of course it is in their interest, it is only common sense to be constantly trying to find a price at which they can sell the most. Is not that in the interests of the consumer? They would not live if they were not trying to serve the interests of the consumer. I am not suggesting that they do that in a sentimental or altruistic frame of mind; it is simply hard-headed common-sense business.
We are all consumers. We are all interested in prices. I do not suppose anyone imagines that when you cross this gangway the interest of the consumer is any less on this side than it is on the other. All we are asking is that we proceed with this thing in an orderly manner. We know from our own experience that it is not just a lot of theory when you talk about ruthless and destructive competition. It is within the memory of many people when the Standard Oil Company was considered to be a monopoly which had knocked out many smaller people. As a matter of fact, going back to the fears of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), despite all his great threats, despite all his assurances that we on this side of the house were unfortunate in not being able to keep in touch with public opinion, he did seem to be a little worried because he knew how things were going. He knew there will be this loss-leader business, that there will be attempts made by the huge distributors to impose their own brands. It will not be only the small business people
2410	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act who will suffer; it will be people of considerable size as well as what is ordinarily called the little people.
I shall pause here to sum up what I have said. We are asked to pass this legislation, I was going to say under pressure but the sense of applying pressure does not seem to be so strong today. It is true the hon. member for Spadina has used some rough words which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) would never use, but on the other hand the Prime Minister was much softer this morning and it may be that we are not going to have closure applied.
I want to say what I said in the beginning, that I believe we in the opposition have a duty to perform. I am sure there have been many cases where oppositions have held out and the public has had time to learn. The hon. member for Spadina is ready to certify to us that the public is learning and that that is going to be injurious to us. We will have to take that chance. So far as the opposition is concerned we have a duty to perform, and I hope we will not be terrified by the hon. member for Spadina or by any other person, more or less formidable.
I should just like to repeat what I said before, that no real evidence has been given to us of any reason why this matter cannot be left over and the evidence obtained which Senator Lambert said had been denied, and which no single man would say was not necessary before legislation of this kind could be passed. There has not been a scintilla of a reason given as to why that cannot happen.
Secondly, there is no evidence, and I mean, no evidence on balance, that this law will bring down prices. The balance of evidence is that it will tend to raise prices. To ask us to agree that this measure shall be passed when there are so many reasons against it, and when none as yet has been given for it that can bear the slightest examination, is something that should not be done. I consider that we are merely doing our plain duty in asking delay in this legislation. Important as it may be, it is not of such importance that it should be hurried through. No one can suggest that anyone is going to be injured if it is left for two, three or four weeks until we meet again. On the other hand there is every reason to believe that if it is hurried through it will injure large numbers of our fellow citizens who have never had a proper chance to state their case before the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it was not my privilege to be here last week, by reason of a prior engagement which made it necessary for me to be absent. However, I had made myself clear with


reference to this legislation when speaking in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. At that time I took a stand in opposition to it, and that stand has not been altered as a result of the evidence taken before the committee or by anything that has been said in this house, all of which I have read.
The reason I took the stand I did was that, in my opinion, this measure in its present form could not but be injurious to the consumer, although possibly of temporary benefit for a matter of a month or two until such time as small business found itself under the domination of big competing business. This legislation contains no defence against loss leaders, and it should. I think the stand taken by the opposition will end once and for all in this country the iniquitous practice of the government putting off contentious business to the end of the session so that, with the desire of hon. members to conclude the session, legislation however harmful can be forced through. We had an example of that last year in the dairy products act which was passed in the dying days of the session. It was condemned by every outstanding farm magazine in Canada as a dangerous piece of legislation, and the opposition received condemnation for not giving it the meticulous examination that all legislation should receive.
I was very interested to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) today. Gone was the attitude of a few days ago, an attitude quite out of keeping with what one might have expected from the Prime Minister. At that time he threatened. Parliament consists of more than the government, even though at the moment it has allies in other parts of the house. Members of the House of Commons have a responsibility. The Prime Minister, without any justification whatsoever, made the threat that closure would be applied.


Mr. Fulford:: He was dared to do it by
the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming).


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend by that
interruption indicates how easy it is to provoke the Prime Minister, if one member can arouse him to the point where he would deny free speech in parliament. I do not want to say any more about that, but one should never allow himself to become annoyed and in a moment of pique and annoyance make threats which strategic retreats afterward can never cover up. These are the words he used in the debate on December 20.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I say
to the hon. member it has already been decided that discussion of the matter of closure is out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: To discuss the question
of a decision made by the government is out of order in the debate? Surely, with the greatest deference, Mr. Speaker, you are not ruling that not only are we to be threatened with being shut up but we are also to be shut up now by the Speaker so far as referring to such a matter is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I did not make the decision. It was made by the Speaker.


James Garfield Gardiner: Closure is a Tory measure
anyway.


Mr. Hellyer:: One should never allow himself to be frustrated.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish my hon. friend
would make his contribution in this debate and voice the views of the people of his constituency rather than interrupt. I was referring to what the Prime Minister said, and I certainly know of no ruling that one could not refer to the closure that was threatened the other day. The Prime Minister said, "I do not intend"-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The decision was it could not be discussed on the amendment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This is not the amendment.


An hon. Member:: Sure it is.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask for the reference
to any ruling of that nature?


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Where was the ruling?


John George Diefenbaker: Does Your Honour rule-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The ruling was made by the Speaker himself. I will consult Hansard on the point.


John George Diefenbaker: I will not say more if
you so rule, but I must say I would have to appeal against a ruling that I cannot discuss in the House of Commons the actions of the Prime Minister who tries to muzzle the opposition by a threat, even if it does not succeed.


Alphonse Fournier: he had tried it would have been done, you know.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It would be in order on the motion for closure, but there is no motion for closure before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. I want to say to my hon. friend
Combines Investigation Act who interrupted me a moment ago and said that if they had wanted to do it, it would have been done-


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Tories did it three times.


John George Diefenbaker: -that such a remark is not in keeping with my hon. friend's usual debonair attitude in parliament.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only reason it could be done is because the Conservatives put it on the statute books.


John George Diefenbaker: Does Your Honour rule I cannot discuss the words of the Prime Minister in the house on December 20 as found at page 2254 of Hansard?


Mr. Hodgson:: It was referred to again this morning.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister of course made reference to it this morning. If Your Honour so rules, ordinarily I would feel like appealing-


Major James William Coldwell: May I rise and say I have always understood that what is said in a debate may be commented upon by a subsequent speaker. I think a ruling to any other effect would be wrong and would certainly create a precedent which I think would be equally wrong. That is my understanding of the manner in which debate is carried on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was not in the
house this morning. If reference was made to it by the Prime Minister the hon. member may answer.


John George Diefenbaker: We have been at cross purposes, Mr. Speaker. Before the Prime Minister came in just now, I was mentioning that on Thursday, December 20, he made a very definite statement, and I should like to refer to it because after all the debate had gone on then for a matter of only two or three days. The Prime Minister used these words which were definite, left no qualification and were subject to no possible misinterpretation. He said:
I do not intend to debate this motion-
He was referring to the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
-but I do intend when the house is in session tomorrow, if the business has not been concluded, to give notice under the closure rule that it will be applied on Thursday, December 27. As to this motion, I have no views about it. It is a matter which the house should decide on a free vote according to the views of each individual member.
That was a threat.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If my hon. friend will permit me, I do not think he was in the house

Combines Investigation Act last Thursday. My remarks followed a remark by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) that the motion which had been submitted not to adjourn at ten o'clock constituted an indirect closure, and that if there had to be closure the government should take the responsibility for sponsoring it. I was saying that I was not expressing any views on that motion but that if debate continued on Thursday and Friday in the terms in which it had been carried on up to that time, I would consider giving notice that closure would be imposed. Next morning the atmosphere had somewhat cleared. I said then that there had not been an opportunity for debate on this measure on Thursday and I would not, therefore, do as I had intimated the day before and give notice on Friday for closure today. It was not intended as a threat. It was intended as a response to the challenge-I believe the word "challenge" was used by the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming)-that if there was to be closure it should not be by any indirect method but by the method provided for in the rules.


John George Diefenbaker: That adds confusion to the confusion already existing. I read the Prime Minister's words, and I know that he may have been piqued-


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, the hon. member would be quoting from a previous debate which was already decided. He is not quoting from this debate at all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That debate was on the motion for adjournment, and not on the present measure.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If you will allow me, I think it is probably of advantage to everyone that this point be cleared up, and that the events as they occurred be correctly stated. Had the hon. member been here he would appreciate what the atmosphere was at that time and the difference in the atmosphere the next morning, as well as what I hope is the difference in the atmosphere today.


John George Diefenbaker: I welcome the opportunity of having the matter cleared up. But I would say that playing fast and loose with the rights of the opposition should not depend upon the atmosphere of the house. That is a very dangerous method of determining what should be done. What the Prime Minister said is as definite as can be. It is a dangerous thing to apply closure. The threat of closure-and that was the threat-would deny discussion by the opposition, particularly after the legislation was brought forward in the dying days of the session, apparently in an endeavour to push it through


before the Christmas recess. I hope that out of what has taken place in recent days will come an end to the practice of legislation important to the welfare of millions of consumers in the country being introduced in the last days of the session, apparently in a desire to force it through regardless of any representations that might be made against it if time and opportunity were given.
I was not a member of the committee, but I have had representations made as to unfairness shown to various organizations in this country. I refer to the retail merchants of Saskatchewan, the largest organization of retail merchants in the Dominion of Canada, and allied with no other organization. The 2,400 members of this organization sent in a brief and requested the privilege of explaining it before the committee. The chairman denied them that opportunity upon the excuse that another organization had spoken for them. I find strong opposition to the manner in which the committee was conducted. Apparently it was conducted upon the basis that only the evidence of those who might be considered favourable toward the legislation would be heard, and those who would present any evidence to the contrary were denied the full opportunity of doing so.
I listened with a great deal of interest today to the words of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). The hon. member, who has a knowledge of business and a full realization of the dangers of this legislation, asked the committee to accept an amendment that would put a stop to loss leaders. He pointed out from the experience of the past the danger of loss leaders. To begin with they may be beneficial to the consumer, but later become detrimental to the consumer as well as the small businessman. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Spadina was turned down. Had it been accepted it would have gone a long way toward removing many of the objections taken to this legislation. Today the hon. member expressed the hope that if things turn out badly under this legislation, at the next session the government will take action. Was there any reason for the rush, the unseemly haste in connection with this legislation? If the conditions referred to by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) are in fact true, why has this government waited for sixteen years to remedy them? If conditions are as described by my hon. friends opposite, why the unseemly haste in endeavouring to cram this legislation through in the last days of the session? No one has explained that as yet.

I took the trouble to read the judgments of the United States supreme court on the subject, and in particular the judgments of one of the most anti-trust jurists the United States ever produced, one of the great philosophers on the United States supreme court, the late Mr. Justice Brandeis. He referred to this practice in these words:
The Sherman law-
That is the law against trusts.
-seeks to protect men In the right freely to compete and to prevent practices which must result in suppressing competition. It seeks to preserve to the individual both the opportunity and the incentive to create. It seeks to encourage the individual effort. The right of an individual manufacturer in a competitive business to market his goods in his own way, by fixing, if he desires, the selling price to the consumer-is in entire harmony with the underlying principle of the Sherman law.
Then Mr. Justice Brandeis said this in another judgment:
Americans should be under no illusions as to the values or effect of price cutting. It has been the most potent weapon of monopoly-a means of killing the small rival to which the great trusts have resorted most frequently. It is so simple, so effective. Farseeing organized capital secures by this means the co-operation of the shortsighted unorganized consumer to his own undoing. Thoughtless or weak, he yields to the temptation of trifling immediate gain, and, selling his birthright for a mess of pottage, becomes himself an instrument of monopoly.
Over and over again, Mr. Justice Brandeis dealt with that phase, the need to protect the consumer against the rapacity of these great businesses that, in their desire to destroy competition, resort to price cutting through loss leaders. Having resorted to price cutting and thereby eliminated competition, they then restore the prices-


Major James William Coldwell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Could he give us the dates of those judgments?


John George Diefenbaker: 1926.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friends will find that judgment quoted with approval in 1949 and 1950. When the matter of fair trade practices came before the United States supreme court in 1951 the principles in that judgment were accepted by that court as the epitome of good business practice to preserve private enterprise while assuring protection of the consumer. Price cutting by loss leaders shamelessly hoodwinks the consumer. Price jugglers, to use the expression of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), utilize this means to destroy competition. Then prices will go down, somebody
Combines Investigation Act will say: Is there not an immediate advantage? There is. The consumer sees the price come down on that particular commodity, but there is one thing he does not realize, and that is that when the price goes down and a loss is sustained by big business, when the competitors are wiped out or competition is reduced, the price goes up in order to make up for the loss sustained through the loss leader.
My hon. friend made that fact very clear this afternoon, and I thought he made an admirable speech until, realizing how emasculated this legislation will be without something to control loss leaders, he made an appeal to business or rather that segment of it that is unfair and dishonest, that seems to regard excessive profits as just and fair. Then in effect, he said: I call upon you, I ask you, I implore you, do not take advantage; because if you do the Minister of Justice will call on parliament to punish you, and punishment will come some time. Mr. Speaker, if punishment comes at that time in the future that it came to the great milling companies in this country, those rapacious, predatory interests to Which the hon. member for Spadina referred may sleep without fear. This legislation may cut prices on individual commodities-and no one will argue that-for a short time. But nowhere has evidence ever been given-and I read the evidence given in the United States and in Great Britain-that when loss leaders are used, it is not the consumer who ultimately pays. The loss leader has achieved the purpose for which it is intended when it attracts the consumer into the business and, being brought in, the dishonest business can take from him prices unjust and unfair in other commodities.
I took the trouble to ascertain whether or not there had been a jump in the prices of fair-traded drug products in the United States. We have no statistics in Canada. Nothing but surmise, suspicion, and sometimes sentiment appears in the evidence given in this regard in the committee. The United States bureau of labour statistics has found that the prices of products in the United States jumped, from the year 1939, an average of 87 per cent; that is, the commodities sold in those businesses that deal in part in commodities the prices of which are controlled, while prices on fair-traded drug products rose only by 10-5 per cent during the same period. There is no evidence to the contrary in this country. The committee sat; it heard evidence. But when there was evidence to be heard such as' that which the retail merchants of Saskatchewan, 2,400 strong, wanted to place before that committee by word of mouth in addition to the written brief, they were denied the opportunity to present it. The hon. member for
2414	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act Spadina stated that the cost of living had gone up during the last available month by [DOT]8 per cent. The cost of living index of our country has been challenged as not properly setting forth the actual cost of living because it does not include the impact of taxation, a most important matter in determining the cost of living. Yet, without taking taxes into consideration, that increase of -8 per cent meant a loss of $48 million a year in real earnings to the wage and salary workers of Canada during that month. What the opposition has been trying to do in this debate has been to take a stand on behalf of the consumers of Canada in the long run rather than to have in mind the advantage to the government in the short run. Law is just as strong as the degree to which it is enforced. When I read these speeches by the Minister of Justice in which, as a St. George, he goes forth to slay the dragon of unjust monopoly, I feel that the dragon of big business is in the same danger as was the dragon in the past. Danger? What about the combines reports of 1946?


An hon. Member:: They are hidden.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. McGregor made the reports. What about the international combines in glass, tools, electrical elements and radio tubes? Have there been any prosecutions? Until 1948 there could not be any prosecutions without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada or of the attorneys general of the provinces. In 1948 I moved an amendment that permitted any individual to take prosecutions. Radios brought into Canada, according to one of the reports, were written up 113 per cent by agreement. The hon. member for Spadina mentioned the prosecutions of the glass combine; and I am glad to have his support for a proposition I advanced some weeks ago, to the effect that the maximum penalty of $25,000 is as nothing compared with the amount that can be secured illicitly by breaking the law. The hon. member made a statement today that will challenge the ingenuity of the Minister of Justice, when he pointed out that two combines that had been fined immediately thereafter raised their prices uniformly, the significance of his statement being that the fine would ultimately be paid by the people of Canada. What a record is the annual report of 1950-51! I would commend this report to you, Mr. Speaker. It is dated July 30, 1951. As the custodian of justice the minister has the power to set the judicial machinery in motion and proceed against illegal combines. Did he himself do so during the year? The answer is given on pages 2 and 3 of this report:
No investigations were commenced as a result of ministerial direction or formal application during the past year.


Here is the record:
Number of directions from the minister for inquiries-0.
Yet they tell us now, Mr. Speaker, that under price maintenance the people are being and have been gouged. The government contends that there is no need of any further legislation to meet the problem of loss leaders; the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) pointed out what had been said by the late Colonel Ralston and the present Chief Justice Ilsley regarding the section of the Criminal Code that is stated to be sufficient for that purpose. If the law is there and injustice has been done, as my hon. friends on the side of the government would have us believe, why have there been no prosecutions since 1936 under the section that they contend will preserve and protect the Canadian people against loss leader practices?
The report continues: "How many formal applications were there for inquiries? None." The number of formal investigations in process at the end of the year 1950-51 was three and not one was started between January 1, 1950 and March 31, 1951, while the present minister has been in charge of the machinery. Those three had been commenced before he became minister.


William Earl Rowe: No wonder there is a Christmas rush.


John George Diefenbaker: They talk of enforcing the law. Is the enforcement going to be increased? Is the will to enforce the law going to be stronger? I must be fair, though. The report continues:
Number of informal complaints or inquiries of the nature of complaints received and examined, 70.
When my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) spoke on the radio in stentorian tones he pointed out how the department had proceeded to investigate seventy of them. Let us see how they did it. I turn to page 2 of the report which deals with informal complaints, and I read:
A considerable number of informal complaints and inquiries were received in the course of the fiscal year 1950-51 as in other fiscal years. Some of these complaints were based upon misapprehension as to the provisions of the act,-
They do not tell how many were under a misapprehension. I continue:
-as for example the complaint of the type that a certain manufacturer, not occupying a monopoly position, was, as a matter of independent and individual policy, confining his distribution to a number of selected outlets in each district and, incidentally to such policy, refusing to extend wholesalers' prices to the complainant. A complaint of this nature is ordinarily disposed of by an exchange of letters with the complainant.

Letters exchanged with the complainant are no great deterrent to the commission of wrongdoing, Mr. Speaker. I continue to read from the report.
Another class of complaint alleges a situation to which, if it existed, the act would apply, but fails to disclose sufficient facts to raise even a reasonable suspicion.
These are those included in the seventy cases that were investigated. I continue:
Other complaints are sufficiently precise to put the commission upon inquiry, in which case the matter is carried to a stage where it is apparent that further inquiry is unwarranted, whereupon it is discontinued, or else it develops into a formal investigation.
There were no formal investigations in the fifteen months between January 1, 1950 and March 31, 1951, under the present Minister of Justice. Now, sir, if the wrongs that we hear of in price fixing have been so continuous and continuing and are the result of monopoly agreement and arrangements, why is it that during a period of fifteen months, while the cost of living continued to rise, the Minister of Justice and the government of this country never proceeded with one new investigation?
The hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) said that I referred to Mr. McGregor as the man who could give evidence; and I did. I suggested that Mr. McGregor be brought before the committee in order to advise what general changes should take place, and what alterations should be made in the combines act. I asked that the act be revamped; for certainly as it now stands it offers no protection against those who would take advantage of the public. A fine of $10,000 or $25,000 is a drop in the bucket compared with the millions that may be made, and apparently have been made, by certain combines according to the combines reports. I asked that the act be revamped; I asked that Mr. McGregor be brought before the committee for the purpose of explaining why the act had not been enforced, and also for the purpose of replying to a statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice who, when speaking in Vancouver regarding Mr. McGregor, said in effect that he did not understand some things connected with the flour milling industry. If he had understood these things he would not have reported as he did, and would not have resigned.
Did Mr. McGregor get an opportunity before the committee to make recommendations regarding a complete revamping of the act? Did Mr. McGregor have an opportunity to tell his story as to why he had to resign, because he received no support whatsoever from the government in the enforcement of the law against the flour milling industry? No; Mr. McGregor was brought in for one purpose, to deal with retail price maintenance.
Combines Investigation Act He had to admit that unless something was done to meet the question of loss leaders the legislation being introduced wouM be almost ineffectual, or certainly far from as effectual as it should be. Therefore I asked myself, why is it that this government does not bring in legislation to stop loss leader practices that have been proven so dangerous? Why is small business in this country to be placed in a position of jeopardy? Why is the consumer going to be placed in a position where, while enjoying a temporary advantage in prices, once competition has been removed he will ultimately be required to pay more for other products as well as the product upon which the cut is taking place? Again I make this suggestion, that we in this house redraft the combines act and make it an instrument to preserve the consumer from exploitation, while assuring to business a fair and reasonable profit. The profit line has become the danger line, the strife line. It is time some people in our country realize that unless there is a profit in business there cannot be wages for labour, nor fair prices to the primary producer. Fair and reasonable prices which ensure a fair and proper return in profits and permit an available reserve being plowed back into business in order to assure further jobs are the foundation of economic prosperity.
To sum up, in my opinion the effect of this legislation will be: First, in our desire to protect consumers we will in fact ultimately be harming them unless legislation is brought in to meet the loss-leader problem. Second, I think of many products that are the same price in Ottawa as in Saskatoon and Vancouver. That will end, under this legislation. We on the prairies and the people in the maritime provinces, who now have the advantage of having the same prices on these commodities as do the people in Ontario and Quebec, will find ourselves penalized by the discriminatory freight rates which will have to be added to the price of each commodity. And instead of the removal of price fixing on many products being advantageous to the consumer it will mean that those of us in distant parts of Canada will have to make up an amount that up to now has been included in a fixed price made applicable everywhere in our country.
This legislation as it now stands cannot carry out the will of parliament, if that be to assure a reduction in the cost of living. When I see the government playing around with a matter such as this, with prices going up at all times, I ask myself this question: Why is it that something is not being done; why is it that something was not done at this session to remove the sales tax on necessities?
2416	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act
The consumers league, represented by Mrs. Walton, the president of that league, are quoted with respect at all times. It presented a brief to the government last fall in which it asked for the removal of the sales tax on necessities, and named those necessities. Why was something like that not done?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has exhausted his time.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I shall not do that. I shall have an opportunity to conclude in another debate. I thank the house, however, for giving me that consideration.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that the debate has taken a very great turn for the better today, and that to no member who has taken part in it are we more indebted for this fact than the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has just taken his seat.
After having spoken at such great length concerning this matter I thought perhaps, out of some consideration for my fellow members,
I should not take any further part in the debate. However, the hon. member has raised certain points which I think require a reply, which I shall now endeavour to give.
The hon. member is always particularly effective when speaking before an audience which is not too well informed about the subject matter of his remarks. I wonder sometimes if he does not somewhat underestimate the intelligence of members in this chamber, because some of the remarks he made today are of the type one would expect to hear from him, and in a most effective manner, on the hustings where there is less likelihood of his hearers being able to check on his statements of fact and of law.
My hon. friend has undertaken to criticize the administration of the Combines Investigation Act, and this is not the first occasion upon which he has done so. I can remember that in one of the early speeches I had the honour to deliver in the House of Commons, at a time when certainly I did not have any great amount of responsibility for the administration of the Combines Investigation Act- as I was a new minister who had just come in-I undertook to defend the administration of that act over the years against the spirited attack which had been made against it by the hon. member for Lake Centre.
A man who is in public life and who administers legislation of this kind can pretty well reconcile himself from the start to having some rather strong criticism made against


him; some warranted, perhaps, but much of which I suggest is not warranted. But the civil servants who administer this act and who under legislation of this kind have very great powers-powers equalling those of the minister himself-are not able to defend themselves in the house. Therefore I think I ought to say a word or two concerning the administration of the Combines Investigation Act generally; that is to say, not only at the present time, but in the era when Mr. McGregor was in charge of the work, from the time it was first created by the Liberal party in the middle twenties.
In doing this I do not want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion. I do not wish to go one by one through the cases the combines investigation administration has prosecuted and refute case by case the libels, if that is not an improper word, made upon the effectiveness of the administration by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Because if I were to do that I would be merely repeating a speech I made in the house in the fall of 1949, I believe it was, and there would be no purpose in my indulging in that repetition.
But I think perhaps I can go to a more impartial source for a very objective appraisal of the Canadian combines investigation administration, a source which I am sure the hon. member for Lake Centre would be, or should be, the last to question. It is a source which would compare not unfavourably with himself in political partisanship because, like himself, this gentleman was a leading member of the Conservative party, not in this country but in the United Kingdom where perhaps, as this debate would indicate, they were a little less partisan and a little more objective in their approach to this question than we are accustomed to find them here. This is what the hon. gentleman, Mr. Leathers, said in a debate in the British House of Commons; and by the way he is one of the leading lights of the Conservative party over there and, incidentally, is Canadian by birth.
My right hon. and learned friend the member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) -
He has been described as one of the brightest mindis in the Conservative party in that country.
-wrote an excellent book on this subject about two years ago.
The subject was that of monopolies, generally.
One thing he said which struck me as eminent good sense, as is everything which the right hon. and learned gentleman says, was: "Other British dominions have passed laws against trade restraints though none are as complete or effective as the Canadian law."

And Mr. Leather's remarks continue:
I am sorry to see that my cousins in the states are being held up as paragons all the time. The Combines Investigation Act in Canada has worked extremely well. I know that my legal friends can ridicule prosecutions under the anti-trust acts of the U.S.A., and that it is easy to get up and point out anomalies and loopholes, but I do not think that is relevant. It is easy to attack monopolies in general, but it is even worse to defend them in particular. That is precisely what has been happening for many years.
And listen to this description by a Conservative in the British parliament of an attitude in this matter which has not been entirely absent from this debate.
Everybody says "It is a very bad thing, but when you come to my industry that is different."
I do not believe that it is different . . . Reference to this has been made in Lewis Ord's book "Politics and Poverty" and I will give an extract from it. He gives statistics which I think are of great interest. He points out that in 1815, which is a good starting date as being the end of the Napoleonic wars and when the industrial revolution was getting underway, that the real wage standard of living on both sides of the Atlantic was precisely equal. By 1890 it was still precisely equal, but we had progressed on both sides by 300 per cent. When we look at the graph from 1890 onwards, the thing goes wrong. In 1914, the North American real wage standard had increased to 600 per cent and' ours to only 400 per cent. By 1939, it had increased to 1,200 per cent and ours was only 800 per cent. Ever since they have continued to advance at ever-increasing rates. If we look at the graph as it is at present we see that the American real wage standard is nearly double ours. The critical date on the graph is 1890.
And again:
What happened is perfectly simple. In the 1890's Canada and the U.S.A. made their first halting steps towards making competition the law of the land. It was precisely at the same time that the managements, trade unions and politicians in this country started to preach collectivism and started to get together to curtail competition. I suggest that the two things are clearly relevant and must have some close connection. Therefore, when we are considering on both sides of industry productivity and real wage standards of living, I suggest that it is relevant to consider restrictive outlooks and collective outlooks in industry as part of that picture ... We do not need any more experience to enable us to prove precisely what trade practices restrict output and keep up prices. Everybody knows what they are.


John George Diefenbaker: What date was that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: June, 1951.


John George Diefenbaker: What page?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Column* 2735 and previous, I suggest that the fundamental, basic issue is whether any nation which professes to believe in free enterprise is going to continue under competitive enterprise or whether we are going to struggle along under restrictive practices, either private, which are more objectionable or-I am sure our friends of the C.C.F. party will forgive us-public, which we might regard as being somewhat less objectionable.
Combines Investigation Act
My hon. friend says that price cutting will follow from the absence of resale price maintenance. I think he put forward the suggestion that if this legislation goes through, or to be more realistic, I should say when it goes through, there would be the frightening prospect for the independent retailer that the predatory price-cutting big interests will drive all the little fellows in the retail trade out of business.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: A substantial number, because if the number was not substantial there would be no substance to my hon. friend's argument.


John George Diefenbaker: Have not representations to that effect been made to the minister by small business?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes, indeed. In considering those representations we have looked at some facts which are notorious and which I recommend to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). The hon. member should be more realistic and have a little common sense and have a look at these other facts. If the doing away with resale price maintenance in those fields in which it now prevails is going to expose those fields to predatory price cutting, then we should expect to see predatory price cutting in those fields where there has been no resale price maintenance. They are quite extensive. On the hon. member's own representations, they represent 85 per cent of retailing in Canada because if I understood him correctly he said that 15 per cent was resale price maintained.
Do we find in the 85 per cent of retailing in which there is no price maintenance that the little fellow is being driven out of business by predatory price cutting? Take the grocery trade, in which I think the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) said there was less than one per cent resale price-maintained, or the hardware trade in which the trade representative before the joint committee said there was less than 8 per cent. I submit that every reasonable person with ordinary horse sense who takes a realistic approach to the plain facts of life will realize that if we do not have wholesale bankruptcies and chaos and predatory price cutting in the field in which resale price maintenance does not exist to any significant degree at the present time, then by the most ordinary logic we should be able to assume that if resale price maintenance is abolished in those areas which it now covers there will be no more reason to suppose that as long as economic conditions remain as they are at the present time such chaotic conditions will follow. That is the reason, as I understand it, that

Combines Investigation Act the members of the parliamentary committee stated in their report, of which I certainly approve, this proposition:
Your committee is of the view that if other types of predatory price cutting, the possibility and the nature of which cannot at the present time be foreseen, take place, the government should then consider placing before parliament further amendments of the Combines Investigation Act or the Criminal Code prohibiting such other types of predatory price cutting and providing adequate penalties for them.
The preceding paragraph of the report reads:
Certain groups appearing before the committee have expressed the view that one of the consequences of prohibiting resale price maintenance will be to enable large and powerful retailing interests to engage in a policy of selling goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying the independent retailer. This committee does not think that under present conditions there is any substantial likelihood of such policies being engaged in but would recommend to the government-
I recommend this next phrase particularly to the leader of the opposition.
-in the event of such policies being practised, the vigorous enforcement of section 498A of the Criminal Code.
The main reason why we have not had occasion to vigorously enforce section 498A of the Criminal Code is that under the economic policies which have prevailed in this country during the last fifteen years, and under prevailing world conditions if you like to be absolutely fair, we have had the advantage of full employment and abundant revenues and it has not been necessary for any person in the trade to come to the combines investigation branch and suggest that that section should be invoked.
Perhaps that is not completely correct because we have had one or two specific complaints under section 498A (a). Legal members will recall that that is the subsection which prohibits the granting of a discount to a purchaser over and above the ordinary quantity or quality discounts available to the whole trade. We had complaints that a certain firm in Canada was granting unfair discounts in contravention of that section.
What happened? We went to this firm and we said, "our attention has been called to the possibility that you have been contravening this section of the Criminal Code." They said, "we were not aware of this section of the Criminal Code, but maybe so. Here are our price lists; have a look at them." We said, "there is item so and so, there is item so and so and there is item so and so which in our judgment contravene that section." They said, "that is quite all right. You say what the proper discount should be in that 
case and we will amend it and abide by it. We are very glad to have this matter drawn to our attention."


John George Diefenbaker: When was that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That was within the last year. Reading from the last report of the combines investigation branch with bated breath like the villain in a melodrama, my hon. friend says that there has not been a single case in which the minister has authorized investigation under the act by ministerial direction. Think of it! I have no doubt that out in Lake Centre he would probably evoke great cheers and carry tremendous conviction by a statement of that sort, but my hon. friend is singularly lacking in preparation for the part he has taken in this debate if he has not acquainted himself with the fact that he can go back through all the preceding reports of the combines investigation branch and discover that in only a very few, if any, instances-I cannot recall a single instance offhand-has ministerial direction been given for action to be taken under the Combines investigation Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that not prove my case that there is no enforcement?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend made
a remark-


John George Diefenbaker: Does that not prove that there is not very much of a will to enforce?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It certainly does not prove any such thing, although that is what my hon. friend would like to convey to the people of Canada, and it is upon that type of propaganda that he and his party thrive. What are the facts? As I think my hon. friend knows-I would not be a bit surprised if he knew it when he rose to speak today-the facts are that under the act there are three ways in which investigations can be authorized. One is by ministerial direction. Another is by the action of the Combines Investigation Act commissioner himself, his powers with respect to initiating proceedings being just as full and complete in every respect as those of the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: You fixed him on the flour milling report.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Let me finish what I am saying.


An hon. Member:: It is hurting now.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Third, there is the method which my hon. friend himself could have invoked if he was so very much excited about the impropriety of there being no prosecutions, by no more complicated a device than getting five of his fellow citizens

to join with him in presenting a petition to the combines investigation commission which would compel action under the act. If he regards these things as having the degree of impropriety which he professes to regard them as having, I am very much surprised that he did not take that course long ago.
A little bit of common sense applied to the provisions of this act would, I think, convince any reasonable man that, where the minister has a first-class staff of able, sincere and hard-working people, for the minister himself to invoke from time to time the power to authorize investigations under the act could only be for one reason, because he thinks the combines investigation commissioner is failing to discharge his duties and exercise the powers which the act gives him. If the minister should adopt a practice of that sort I cannot imagine any other course he could follow which would be more destructive of the morale of the organization.
May I say that not only during the time of the present commissioner but also during the time of his predecessor, Mr. McGregor, there has never been any question in the administration of the Combines Investigation Act but that the commissioner could be absolutely depended upon to initiate the investigations that might be required from time to time.
My hon. friend makes a great fuss about the fact that there were only three formal investigations, and again he is trading upon the lack of information, as he supposes, of his audience. If he knew as much about matters of this kind as he professes to know he would know, for example, that in the case of the United States anti-trust division they figure that on the average it takes three years from the initiation of an inquiry in the first place until the matter is finally put into prosecution through the courts. While we do it somewhat more rapidly in this country, it still is a long, tedious and arduous process. It requires no imagination for anyone to realize that large and powerful organizations are involved in these matters. In this respect I do agree with one statement of fact my hon. friend made. They are large and powerful organizations, and they are also exceedingly intelligent men. They have the benefit of the very best accounting and legal advice, and we never launch a prosecution in any city in Canada that we do not go into court to be faced with a galaxy of the best legal talent that money can employ. It is a long, tough, uphill struggle all the way.
In a great many cases, as one might suppose, these agreements are not reduced to writing with big seals on them. They are not lying readily about for us to pick up.
Combines Investigation Act For example, in the bread prosecution we were only able to establish that there was an agreement, which could not be established definitely in writing or in any other way, by proving a whole series of acts, filing over 1,200 exhibits and taking 100 days of trial in order to show a long series of transactions which could only be consistent with the existence of an agreement, and in that way we secured a conviction. That being the case, I am sure a few moments' reflection would convince my hon. friend first of all that if there were any occasions in connection with the increase in the price of matches or flat glass for the commissioner to send in his operatives to investigate and see whether the increase in price was, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), to recover the amount of their fines-which if I may say so is a rather E. Phillips Oppenheim touch-or whether it might not be the result, as many increases are, of an increase due to economic forces. If it is due to economic forces and the commissioner so finds then we cannot prosecute people for increases in prices that are due to the operation of economic forces. I realize that in all of these remarks I am perhaps out of order, as the hon. member was during 95 per cent of his remarks-


John George Diefenbaker: Speak for yourself.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am speaking for myself because my hon. friend was speaking for himself for a while, and we are both out of order. I am out of order because I have to reply to things that he said that were out of order. He raised the question of international cartels and implied more or less of a smear as to what we had done in that respect. Let me say, as my hon. friend well knows, that the disposition of international cartels has to be an international disposition. If my hon. friend has been following the matter at all carefully, he will know that in the proceedings that have been taken by the United Nations, Canada has been in the very forefront in trying to arrive at some method by which international cartels can be controlled. In the meantime, however, we are confined in Canada to the prosecution of those acts which take place within Canada, and that we have carried out as in the flat glass and match cases and others where we secured convictions.
My hon. friend said that if this legislation passes we will have a great outburst of price cutting which will put the small retailer out of business. He said, and again I agree with him, that it is very difficult to get facts and figures from the Canadian picture which can

Combines Investigation Act be used in our reasoning about this particular subject matter. Professor Fuller, who appeared on behalf of the Canadian pharmaceutical association and who gave what in my judgment was the best brief of any that was submitted against the legislation, admitted freely under cross-examination that there was not a single fact or figure in his whole comprehensive brief, or in the two supplements attached to it, that was Canadian in origin. All the prices, all the facts, all the data came from the United States where, as I am sure the hon. member for Lake Centre will agree, they have built up a substantial amount of literature and statistics on that subject of resale price maintenance. The proponents of the fair trade laws of that country have, in the course of the years, built up a substantial amount of literature and Professor Fuller drew heavily from that source.
In the absence of any reliable data about the Canadian scene, the committee was asked to draw comparisons between things that were really, as Professor Fuller admitted, not comparable. We were asked to draw the conclusion that, because in an industry in which some of the products were price maintained and others were not price maintained, the mark-up on the free goods was higher than it was on the price maintained goods, that proved that resale price maintenance was a good thing. We all remember the book "1066 and All That" in which this subject or the other subject was said to be a good thing or a bad thing; on the basis of such proof we were asked to agree that resale price maintenance was a good thing in that vague sense. Those who have read the book will gather my meaning. In other words, such a comparison proves nothing. The only way in which a system of free competitive selling could be compared with a system of resale price maintenance is to compare the price of identical goods sold simultaneously under conditions as closely identical as possible in a jurisdiction in which resale price maintenance prevails and in an adjoining jurisdiction in which resale price maintenance does not prevail. To apply the rules of logic, if you are going to compare the benefits of this system with the benefits of that system you have to have every other factor in your comparison common to the two, in order to compare the results of one system with the results of the other system.
When you apply that method.-as Professor Fuller admitted!, the only reasonably sound method-it does not make any difference where you go for the facts and there are not too many places you can go. You can only

go to those places in the United States where there is a state in which free trade prevails, like Texas, and a contiguous state of about the same economic development in which resale price maintenance prevails, like California. You can make comparisons between Missouri and Illinois or between the District of Columbia and Maryland. In every one of those cases when the comparison is made by an independent body and not by some interested party, you find that the prices are substantially lower in the free trade state as compared to what they are in the other state. Not only is that the case, but in complete refutation of my hon. friend's theory that the only way in which the retail dealer can survive is with the crutch of resale price maintenance, you will find that the independent retailer in Texas has as great a percentage of the total retail business as he has in California. He has as great a percentage in Missouri as he has in Illinois, and so on throughout the comparisons.
We can invoke a fairly up-to-date example of that sort of thing. It is only a few months since an attempt was made by the Missouri supporters of resale price maintenance to have the system introduced! in a state which, up until that .time, had been under free trade. Here is a photostat copy of the St. Louis Star-Times for April 18, 1951. The headline reads:
Eleven to twelve per cent hike in drug prices expected under fair trade bill.
That is to say if the particular bill which was then suggested became law, there would be an eleven to twelve per cent hike in drug prices. Here are the comparisons of existing Illinois prices, that is under resale price maintenance, and St. Louis prices under free trade. There is a smudge on this, but I think it reads, American shampoo; St. Louis price 98 cents; Illinois price $1.39; Bayer Aspirin, 100, St. Louis price 49 cents; Illinois price 59 cents; Fleet's Phospho-Soda, St. Louis price 89 cents, Illinois price $1.29; Hadacol, St. Louis price $1.09, Illinois price $1.19; Pond's cream, $1.13 in St. Louis, and $1.39 in Illinois. I am happy to say, Mr. Speaker, that the attempt to secure passage of this fair trade law was unsuccessful.
I suggest that a great deal of the thinking of my hon. friends of the official opposition is a relic of the days of the Bennett government. They are still thinking in the terms of the period from 1930 to 1935, and all their fears of the effects upon the independent retailer are based upon the fears which every person had, and for good reason at that time. When I say that I want to make it clear that there is no implication that there was any

fault in government policies or anything of tha,t sort. The depression, of that time extended over more than one country. If my hon. friends of the official opposition who have shown considerable interest in a system of fair trade laws in the United States had only prosecuted their research a little further than they did, they would have discovered that the Miles case, in Which the Supreme Court of the United States said that the Sherman anti-trust law was applicable to resale price maintenance, was decided in the year 1912. The first trade law of the state of California, and that was the first one, was not passed until 1931. During this nineteen-year intervening period, the small retailers and business people in the United States were exposed to this predatory price cutting and all the other devices it was possible to bring against them. In spite of that, the supporters of fair trade in that country were not able to get any laws through the Congress of the United States to provide for fair trade.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) has made two speeches and has shown, if I may say so, great ingenuity in a new method of filibustering, in using on the second occasion exactly the same notes as he used on the first, so that the text is almost identical. In that way he saves a great deal of labour and carries' along his filibuster in an admirable way.


An hon. Member:: They all used the same notes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He portrayed to this house this beautiful picture of the operations of the fair trade laws in the United States where everybody was happy: the people who asked for them were happy, the consumers were happy, the governments who put them into force were re-elected, and so on. Mr. Speaker, those interested were not able to get the congress of the United States to pass any fair trade laws between 1912 and 1931. As anyone who has studied the subject knows, the fair trade laws that were then introduced-not in congress; they never succeeded in congress even then-but in the state legislatures, were a phenomenon of the depression. These American fair trade laws were produced by the same kind of thinking that our hon. friends of the official opposition bring into this parliament as a relic of the Bennett government days in their approach to this legislation now before us.
They tell us that these American fair trade laws are a great, spontaneous uprising supported by all of the people of the country; that they are highly acceptable to them and so on; but the fact is that the great majority of these state laws were put through without any public hearing, and without any adequate discussion, so much so that some of the central
Combines Investigation Act provisions in them around which the acts hinged contained a mistake; a bad misprint in the original act in California was repeated in several of the other states for quite a period of time before any person found that the error had been made.
Then with regard to the alleged great amount of support that there was for the Miller-Tydings amendment to the Sherman anti-trust law to provide that resale price agreements reached under the state laws would not come under the ban of the Sherman anti-trust law, what was the history of that amendment? It was introduced in congress and it was defeated. Its sponsors could not get it through in any other way so ingeniously, and I think one could apply a stronger adjective, so the sponsors of the amendment tacked it on as a rider to the appropriation bill of the District of Columbia in the dying hours of the session and put the President of the United States in the dilemma of either letting the amendment go through along with the appropriation bill or vetoing both and then not providing any money to meet the payrolls of the District of Columbia. That was the way in which the Miller-Tydings act came into effect; and this is the act and these are the fair trade state laws that my friend, the hon. member for Broadview, is recommending as a model upon which we should base our legislation.
A great attempt has been made, and without any accuracy whatever, by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and others of his party to try to create the impression, by putting it on Hansard and having it go around the country to people who might not otherwise be informed as to what the facts were, that there had been an attempt on the part of the government, in connection with this legislation, to hold it over until the dying hours of the session in order that it could then be rushed through. What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? The facts are that this legislation was announced in the speech from the throne. Could we, by any chance, announce it any sooner than that?


George Alexander Drew: It was a surprise that it was announced in the house instead of outside of it beforehand.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Too much turkey.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am quite gratified to have my hon. friend announce that it is a surprise to him. If I can only get him to admit the fact, which he has not done up to now, that it was announced in the speech from the throne, I should be glad.


George Alexander Drew: I referred to that matter several times in my speech.

Combines Investigation Act


James Sinclair: Which speech? You made many.


George Alexander Drew: Every one.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Then the resolution setting up the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was moved in this house on November 2 of this year. After a somewhat protracted debate which, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, was not the fault of the government, the resolution was passed and the committee, organizing rapidly and efficiently, had its first meeting on November 13. It then sat, I think I am safe in saying, on every date that was reasonable and reasonably convenient for all of the members to attend, and sat continuously up to the time that it made its final report on December 7. On December 7 the report was made by the committee in the morning and it was tabled in the afternoon. There was therefore no delay there. Then after the report had been tabled it was necessary, under the rules of the house, that we give notice of the introduction of the bill. As a result, the bill was introduced on December 10, took its place on the order paper, and was reached in the ordinary course of business of the house just seven days later, on December 17. The debate on second reading began then and it has continued intermittently ever since.
The mere recitation of these dates disposes of the allegation of any attempt upon the part of the government to delay the discussion of this bill. But when our hon. friends of the official oposition engage in protracted debate and have ten, twenty-five and forty speeches on the same subject, spend a whole day discussing points of order, and then come along and accuse us of delay, or of having held the bill off until the closing days of the session, I think it is really a little bit unreasonable. I will put it that way, not to be provocative at all; I think it is a little bit unreasonable. If we permitted them to get away with it, it would be conveying a wholly false impression to the people of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


George Alexander Drew: It is agreed that he continue.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: May I ask the
minister a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: When the hon.
member for Lake Centre spoke, I understood him to insinuate that Mr. McGregor, when he appeared before the committee, did not give us all the evidence that was required or

available. Do you know of any evidence that was asked for and was not given?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. McGregor appeared on two occasions and, if I may say so, on both occasions made a magnificent presentation of his point of view. He was brought back on the second occasion for the specific purpose of answering any questions which the members of the committee might wish to ask him; and he certainly answered every question that was asked of him by any members of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion. Shall the main motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour will say aye.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate with a good deal of reluctance, because I realize there has been considerable discussion on the amendment and subamendment. However, the few words I shall say will take up very little time, and I suggest hon. members should not complain because it is the first time I have spoken on the motion, the amendment or the subamendment.
May I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Listening to the debate in the last few days I have come to the conclusion that there is no necessity to rush the passage of the bill, and that its consideration should be left over to the next session of parliament. It is untimely to have all this discussion at the end of the session. I suggest further that it was not necessary to have us come back after Christmas. I say consideration of the bill could have been left over until the next session of parliament.
I oppose the bill because I believe it is a smokescreen in the faces of the consuming public. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Combines Investigation Act Croll) has suggested that the government has done everything possible to reduce the high cost of living, but I am suggesting that if in his opinion the hiding for ten months of the flour milling report was an effort on the part of the government to reduce the high cost of living, then he is badly misinformed.
I have received several communications from different organizations and individuals in my constituency. All these have been in opposition to the bill, while I have not received any communication favouring it. Therefore I would be remiss in my duty if I failed at this time to voice my opinion in opposition to the bill. I should not sit idly by and permit small retailers in my riding to be thrown out of business at the expense of the consuming public. Over the Christmas holidays I made it my business to call on as many people as I could and still enjoy Christmas at home. Every retailer and every little businessman is fearful of this legislation.


Mr. Warren:: Louder.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Apparently the crows have not all gone south, because I hear one from Renfrew North. After listening to the debate there is no doubt in my mind that the fears of the small retailer are warranted. I have seen it happen before and probably it will happen again, when many little retailers were put out of business.
It has been said, and I think it is worth repeating, that the little retailer on Main street, on the back concession line, or in the little village is worthy of a great deal of consideration in the community life of this Canada of ours. We know that when the labouring man is out of work he goes to the little retailer for credit. We know that many labouring men have credit arrangements with small retailers under which they pay every two weeks or every month. Those people depend upon that method of merchandising to supply their families with goods and services.
If you put those retailers out of business you throw that business into the hands of the chain stores and other large businesses. We all know what happens when business of any kind becomes a monopoly. Either the government do not act or they seem to have little power in dealing with it at times.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, before the
house rose at 6.15 I stated that I had not received a single communication in favour

Combines Investigation Act oi this legislation. In that I made a mistake because my train was late this morning and I did not have time to go over my mail before the house sat at eleven o'clock. However, during the dinner recess I found a letter on the notepaper of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture signed by one H. H. Hannam. He does not say so definitely, but from the letter one would take it that he probably is in favour of the legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ruled previously
today that letters emanating from people outside the house referring to the proceedings in the house at the present time should not be read.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I am not reading the letter,
Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to. I have read it thoroughly, but in reference to it-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to be too strict, but I think other members of the house agreed not to discuss the letter.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It was discussed this afternoon by a Liberal member on the other side of the house. It is the same letter that was discussed this afternoon by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), I believe.


Mr. Speaker:: It was referred to by him.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That is all I am going to
do. I am not going to read the letter. I am just going to refer to it.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for
Spadina referred to it I think he probably was out of order, but if he did so, I will allow the hon. member to refer to it briefly.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: In this letter Mr. Hannam
is not speaking for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He is speaking for himself, because he does not sign it for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He merely signs it "Mr. Hannam, president and managing director of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture". I said it was on their note paper. He used their paper, but it is not signed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He signs it as managing director. He is responsible for the letter, but I do not think he is responsible for 60 per cent of the farmers of this country. He is certainly not responsible for those in my riding, and is certainly not speaking for them when he writes this letter. I think Mr. Hannam has become more or less of a political stooge. I say that because it is a funny thing that this circular letter, which every member of the House of Commons has received, should be written yesterday and delivered to members of the house today. It looks like a case of giving the football one more kick. I do

not know how he got his job, but I know if the farmers of my riding had any say that he would not have it very long. He would be one more with his hand on the doorknob of the government looking for a job. In view of the way he has acted and the service he has rendered to the government they should give him a job. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) smiling. He would make a good candidate for you for the next election.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought he used to be
a Conservative.


Mr. Adamson:: Oh, no.


William Earl Rowe: You have great influence over him.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: With respect to the sittings
of the special committee, it seems to me the government went to a lot of unnecessary expense. They hired two lawyers at a cost to the people of Canada of $500 a day. If you add their fees, living allowances and travelling expenses you will find it comes to a little over $500 a day. At the same time they acted as prosecuting attorneys when at least five lawyers were members of the committee, each one of whom was quite capable of carrying on the cross-examination of any witness. It appeared to me as if the chairman of the committee wanted somebody there to help him frame the rules as they went along, as the hon. member for Spadina said.
The flour milling report has been mentioned. The same minister kept it under cover and out of sight of members of the House of Commons and the people of Canada at least for ten months. If that could be done for the benefit of the large milling combine in this country, I do not see any reason why this legislation could not be held over for six or eight weeks for the benefit of the small retail store and the consuming public.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here for nearly a week listening to the arguments of the members of the Progressive Conservative party against this bill. When the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) spoke and presented the views of this group I supported him. I was heartily in favour of the bill, and I must say that after listening to the arguments of the opposition I am more in favour of it than ever.


Mr. Brooks:: Then we must be right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am going to be quite brief, but I want to express my unqualified support for the legislation. I listened with care to the lengthy speech of the Minister of Justice

(Mr. Garson), on the motion for second reading. I think he gave a very complete analysis of the present situation and made a good case for the legislation now before the house. I believe it would be to the advantage of the Canadian consumer and create a better understanding of this very complicated situation if the minister would have his speech printed. If he will do so I will put in my order now for 300 copies. When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke this morning he was of course speaking as a Liberal and therefore as a firm believer in free enterprise. I thought he was on sound ground when he said he thought it was the responsibility of the retailer so far as axing the price to the consumer is concerned.
I want to deal briefly with one aspect of this very complicated situation that is giving concern to large numbers of thoughtful people in the business and co-operative fields in various countries. I refer to the increasing percentage costs of distribution as the years go by. That fact has been noticed in Great Britain. It has been discovered in the United States, and without doubt it is a fact in Canada. In that regard I want to quote a few statements made by people well informed on this question. I refer to a statement by Mr. E. F. Schumacher which appeared in the London Observer of February 4, 1945. He said:
In both Britain and the United States distribution costs have steadily risen while production costs have fallen. Whether the consumer has got any benefit out of the increased productive effort is more than doubtful.
There is every indication that a rationalization of distribution may yield larger dividends in real wealth than any economies obtainable on the side of production. What is more, it is becoming ever more apparent that the lack of organization and coordination on the distributive side is the greatest single stumbling block on the road to increased productive efficiency.
Then Lord Woolton, who I believe is now the minister of food in the Conservative government of Great Britain, has characterized the distributive trades as one of the most expensive and luxurious factors of our national life. They are expensive not only in the large slice of the cost of living for which they account, but also in manpower.
I have one more reference. In dealing with this question the writer of this book says:
The methods of enforcement of resale price maintenance vary considerably but they all effectively prevent the efficient retailer from passing on the benefits of his own efficiency to the consumer in the form of lower prices.
He goes on to explain it. I believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) mentioned that point when he was speaking. I believe that is a question that will more and more
Combines Investigation Act seriously concern the governments of all countries. Anyone who has studied the question at all realizes that the percentage of cost allotted to the distribution of goods is, to some extent, spoiling the benefits of the increased production that is taking place now. It is a considerable factor in the increased price of consumer goods. In my opinion there is no question about it; governments will have to give some consideration to this problem because society cannot continue to subsidize inefficiency. Under resale price maintenance as I see it there has been some inefficiency in retailing throughout the years. I just make that point in passing.
We in this group fully appreciate the fears some retailers have about the effect of this legislation on their business. These people have carried on for years under certain business arrangements to which they have become accustomed, and from which many of them believe they have derived a certain amount of protection. It is for this reason the amendment was moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). We are opposed to resale price maintenance because we do not believe prices should be fixed by manufacturers. When the member for Rosetown-Biggar had moved his amendment I was interested to notice that several members of the Progressive Conservative party looked it over very carefully. As I sat here watching them they reminded me of a group of coyotes sniffing at a baited trap; they thought something was hidden. As a matter of fact it was clear and concise, much more so than the amendment moved by the hon. member to my right. I believe that the implementation of that amendment in the federal and provincial spheres would have done a great deal to remove any legitimate fears some retailers may have.
There is no question about the attitude of the consumer of this country. If you were to meet a man on the street and say, "Are you in favour of manufacturers fixing prices?", he would say, "No". I believe that is evident from the representations made to the committee by the various groups. In my case it is evident from the correspondence I have received. I have received one letter from a wholesaler in my constituency in opposition to this legislation. There is no question about the attitude of the majority of the people, as is evident from the representations made to the committee by the trade union representatives. There is no question about the attitude of the farmers. The hon. member for Victoria, Ont., (Mr. Hodgson), speaking just prior to me, suggested that Mr. Hannam was not speaking for the farmers of Canada. Surely he has read the brief presented to the committee on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

Combines Investigation Act If Mr. Hannam was not speaking for the farmers of Canada I think we would have heard about it before now. I think Mr. Hannam's reputation is solid and well founded. He is known as a man who represents the people who have elected him to be head of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
So far as the southeastern interior of British Columbia is concerned, a few days ago I noticed in the press a report of a farmers' meeting at which there was a discussion of resale price maintenance. It was obvious that these men supported this legislation. One illustration of a part of the mechanism of resale price maintenance was brought to the attention of the members present. If a farmer finds it necessary to buy a dollar spring or some other small part, he finds that he has to buy a ten dollar assembly and other pieces which he did not require. It was brought out at the meeting that this is part of the mechanism of price maintenance. Then there was the excellent brief presented to the committee by the consumers association.
For a minute or two I should like to deal with the brief presented by the co-operative union of Canada. I have read all these briefs, and I thought the co-operative union made one or two points that are worth bringing particularly to the attention of the house. I mention this because I am personally interested in the co-operative movement. I have spent a good many years of my life as an official of a co-operative organization, and we have a very well developed co-operative movement in my constituency; a service co-operative operating busses, a fruit growers union, credit unions and so on. At page 700 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on combines legislation I find that paragraph 4 reads as follows:
In operating their co-operatives and developing a Canadian co-operative program, the consumers whom we represent encounter difficulties and frustration. It is obvious that consumer co-operatives cannot function successfully without free access to goods. But our experience is that we are denied this right because of our policy of supplying ourselves with goods at cost through the payment of patronage refunds.
This legislation is going to be of considerable assistance to the co-operative movement of this country, because I have personal experience, as a member and official of the co-operative organization, of the refusal of manufacturers and wholesalers to provide goods.
In the concluding paragraph I think there is something worth bringing to the attention of the house. In paragraph 11 on page 703 we find the following:
In dealing with the particular problem before your committee the interest of the consumer is paramount, and the submission is made primarily on


behalf of the hundreds of thousands of consumers who have through necessity organized to supply themselves with goods and services at cost. The members in these co-operatives believe that through the development of the co-operative movement they can, by the application of the co-operative method and the elimination of profit in the supplying of their goods, eventually solve to a great extent the problem of monopolies which is giving this committee and parliament such deep concern.
I heartily agree with this contention.
In support of this belief we would cite the case of the Swedish Co-operative Union and Wholesale Society (Kooperativa Forbundet). Beginning in the years immediately following the first world war, the Swedish wholesale, in company with other Scandinavian co-operatives, undertook a systematic attack on various cartels which were oppressing the consuming public. Most famous of their achievements was the successful entry into the electric lamp field which resulted in a saving of 5,000,000 kroner a year for the Swedish public. This was followed by similar attacks on the vegetable oil and cash register cartels, among others. In many cases these efforts were carried out in co-operation with other interested elements in the community.
And this is the short paragraph in which I am greatly interested:
In conclusion, we submit that co-operative enterprise, if allowed to develop normally, will of itself do much to combat monopolistic, restrictive trade practices and to supplement federal and provincial legislative action in this field.
I now want to say this in conclusion. I think this legislation is going to be of *advantage not only to the consumers of Canada as a whole but in particular to the co-operative movement in this country. When this legislation is passed it will be possible for the consumers of this country to do something for themselves, if increasing numbers of consumers would enlist in the cooperative movement, would support the promotion of manufacturing co-operatives, would support to a greater extent the development of wholesale co-operatives and would support to an even greater extent than they do today the development of retail co-operatives. The people themselves have in their own hands the opportunity of developing a co-operative movement that can be an effective check upon these unfair trade practices we are dealing with under this legislation. As a result of the investigation of the MacQuarrie committee, the investigation by the parliamentary committee, the debate in this house and the representations made by the cooperative union and other organizations of the people of this country, I trust that this legislation will bring a great stimulus to the co-operative movement in Canada and that, in so doing, it will provide a check by the people themselves on unfair trade practices.


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: In rising for a moment to speak again in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I might say to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) that Mr. DECEMBER 27, 1951
H. H. Hannam certainly does not represent all the farmers of Canada; at least he does not represent a great number of those in my locality. As to the letter which we received this morning-and I am not quoting any more letters, Mr. Speaker-I wish to refer to one sentence in which he says that any prolongation of this debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is one of the sentences to which objection is taken.


Frank Exton Lennard: At any rate, it is in the letter.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the house would like me to read the reference in Beauchesne's third edition. I will read paragraph 266, the latter part of which states:
Members may quote an article or a book stating facts, but a commentary on any proceeding or any discussion in the house, with the object of swinging an opinion to one side or the other, is out of order.


Frank Exton Lennard: All right, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Hannam intimated that any prolongation of this debate might be considered as sparring for political advantage. Apparently Mr. Hannam thought that, by prolongation of this debate, there might be political advantage for some people in this House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should state his own views, not Mr. Hannam's.


Sarto Fournier: And
if he has no views at all, he knows what to do.


Frank Exton Lennard: May I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Hannam does not truly represent the agricultural interests of Wentworth county, at least. He has been referred to this evening as a stooge. I will not go quite that far, Mr. Speaker, but I will say that in my opinion over the past number of years he has been a good right hand man to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).
What I have just said, Mr. Speaker, was prompted by the interjection by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I did not rise for that purpose at all. I merely rose to refer to something that was mentioned last Friday evening during the address of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), when an interjection was made by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer)-and I am sure that the hon. member would welcome this correction as much as anyone-where he said, as reported at page 2375 of Hansard:
I was referring to our country out west when I made the statement that in the average town there is about one drug store for every thousand of population.
The hon. member probably did not have in mind the fact that the average town in his
Combines Investigation Act home province of Saskatchewan feeds a goodly circle of farming community surrounding it. He probably did not take that fact into consideration. On looking up the bureau of statistics census of 1950, I find that in the province of Saskatchewan there were 309 drug stores; and I am not referring to the country stores that sell some form of salicylic acid under some trade name, some patent medicines, castor oil, or horse liniment and that sort of thing. I am referring to the legitimate chemist shops or pharmacies that employ chemists to make up prescriptions and sell drugs. As I say, according to the bureau of statistics census of 1950 in the province of Saskatchewan there were 309 drug stores and the average drug stores served a population of 2,828; that is an average of nearly 3,000 people per drug store. The same thing applies in other sections of Canada. I merely rose to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that there are not in Canada nearly as many drug stores as some people might wish to intimate.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That makes your case that much worse.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on earlier occasions I intimated that there was one feature of this measure which I proposed to discuss at a later time in this debate. It is for that purpose I now rise. Earlier I had hoped the government would recognize the fact that the course it is following is not one that is consistent with the best interests of the consumer or of the people of Canada generally, and for that reason might be persuaded to withdraw this legislation in view of the short time that would elapse until we met in another regular session. The government, however, has refused to consider that delay, although at no time has a single reason-and I repeat those words, a single reason-been given why inquiries could not be made that would place before this high court of parliament evidence upon which we could really form some understandable conclusion as to what should be done to meet this situation.
I regret that some of the speeches by supporters of the government and their socialist associates earlier today have made it quite clear that an attempt is being made to convey the impression that any effort to obtain adequate consideration of this measure is to be branded as defence of the big interests and an attempt to protect practices which the government say should be discontinued. It is not necessary to point out again, because it has been pointed out already, that the only big interests who have appeared in this matter voicing very, very vigorous support are the big interests in the retail trade of this
2428

Combines Investigation Act country. I repeat what I said before. Size or bigness in any retail or other business is not an offence in itself; but certainly if there is any group which has indicated its desire to see this bill adopted it is that retail group which can be described as very big business indeed. That is their legitimate right. In this free economy of ours they have the right to assert their position, as the small retailer has the right to assert his.
When any suggestion is made that we are leaving uncertainty as to our position, because we ask for more information, may I point out that this committee sat for only a very limited time in relation to the importance of this subject, and that it did not permit many people who indicated their desire to do so to place evidence before it. The minister who has introduced this measure in a somewhat emotional display told us that the facts spoke for themselves, and that they demonstrated how little delay there had been in dealing with this measure. He said it had been announced in the speech from the throne that a measure was to be introduced, and that is correct. I believe that was on October 9. It was announced at that time that this very important measure was to be introduced, and it was indicated that it was to deal with the problem of inflation about which, it was stated, the government shared the concern of the people of Canada.
Let us see the measure of haste the government showed to deal with this tremendously important legislation. The announcement was made on October 9; and by great haste and a display of their desire to get ahead with this legislation a motion was made on November 2 that this committee be set up. Surely that was a display of haste which must convince anyone who does not recognize that for the whole of that three weeks and more this house could have been dealing with this very legislation if the government had really wished to set up the committee right away to deal with it.
Then what happened? After protracted debate, according to the minister who has introduced the legislation, the motion was adopted. An examination of Hansard will suggest that the debate was not very protracted in relation to the importance of the subject matter. That motion came forward on November 2 and the committee commenced its work on November 13, eleven days later- another great display of haste on the part of the government. The committee met, and the bill was introduced in this house on December 10. And though it could have been dealt with almost any day after that it was not reached, to use the words of the minister who introduced it, until December 17. There was no reason for that delay except to hold


this bill back until the pressure that was naturally being exerted to get the business done in time for hon. members to get home for Christmas might possibly limit the time available for debate.
The dates given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) support in the most conclusive way the fact that at every stage during this session there has been the maximum possible delay in proceeding with this measure. Not only this one bill still remains to be dealt with. There is the bill introduced by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). We have not yet seen the amended form it is to take. Most certainly if it still contains any wide-open avoidance of the traditional practice of tender there will be no short debate on that bill either. Then we have the annuities bill, an extremely important one, with certain new ideas introduced.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: There are other measures before this house which are certainly going to involve considerable time.
In so far as this measure is concerned, it was brought forward with the other important measures in the same way that important legislation was brought forward at the end of the last session and at the end of other sessions which have preceded this, with the idea that adequate consideration should not be given to it. I am still urging the government to recognize that it would be evidence of one of the best New Year's resolutions ever made by the members of this government if they decided' to change this course and let this measure stand until the next regular session, then appoint a committee that could continue to sit in the intervening period to hear the evidence which could be heard. Or if the government does not feel that such a committee should be appointed, it should really leave the task to the committee which was supposed to deal with it, and let the committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice MacQuarrie deal with this whole problem and present a complete report to this house in regard to the proposed amendments to the combines act.
There is another angle which I do suggest should be given the utmost consideration; that is the absence of any sound explanation why adequate inquiry from several points of view cannot be made. In his earlier remarks today the Prime Minister himself (Mr. St. Laurent) referred to the point I had made in regard to the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act of 1935 which was referred to the courts in 1936. He pointed out that I had recalled the fact that section 14 of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission

Act, which dealt with this question of agreement in regard to prices, had been declared ultra vires of the parliament of Canada by the Supreme Court of Canada in a judgment in 1936. In referring to that fact he indicated that doubtless the remarks I had made would apply to the suggestion that consideration be given to the setting up of a fair trade commission.
In those remarks the Prime Minister recalled references to decisions which were made in regard to the subject matter now before the house. At an earlier point in the discussion of this measure I mentioned the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had not brought before us those independent opinions which had been presented to this high court of parliament on earlier occasions when other similar measures were under consideration, which gave the views of experienced constitutional lawyers in regard to the constitutionality of this measure.
I recognize the fact that there is no requirement that such opinions shall be produced. I would like to have the unqualified assurance of the Minister of Justice that he has received no opinion from any of those with whom he has discussed this subject which suggested the possibility that this measure now before us might be ultra vires.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This present bill?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am very glad to give my hon. friend the assurance that there has been no suggestion from any source whatsoever that it might be ultra vires.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has stated he has received no suggestion of that kind. I would point out that this measure deals with precisely the same subject matter that section 14 of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act dealt with in 1935, when that act was passed. It is perfectly true that the act which was passed in 1935 provided a permissible mechanism that would have legalized arrangements of the very kind which are now to be declared illegal, without any reservation and without any qualification.
I do suggest that it may be well to remember the grounds upon which the act of 1935 was declared invalid, and also to remember certain subsequent legislation which has had some bearing on the extent to which this parliament could go in dealing with matters ordinarily under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, under the device of making it appear that it is a criminal offence or something relating to trade and commerce, or some other subject that would come within federal jurisdiction.
Combines Investigation Act
As the Prime Minister knows so well, there were two cases referred first to the Supreme Court of Canada and later, in 1936, to the privy council. One was a reference in regard to section 498A of the Criminal Codte, and/ the other was a reference in regard to the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act. The Prime Minister acted as one of the counsel for the Attorney General of Canada in those references.
In the reference in regard to section 498A which was first heard by the Supreme Court of Canada and later on appeal by the privy council, there were certain references that I do suggest have some bearing on this measure now before us. In the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, in the matter of a reference as to whether the parliament of Canada had legislative jurisdiction to enact section 498A of the Criminal Code, being chapter 56 of the Statutes of Canada for 1935, the judgment of Chief Justice Duff, I find these comments:
The prohibitions seem to be aimed at the prevention of practices which parliament conceives to be inimical to the public welfare; and each of the offences is declared in explicit terms to be an indictable offence.
Later in the same judgment the chief justice said:
It is also well settled that the parliament of Canada cannot acquire jursidiction over a subject which belongs exclusively to the provinces by attaching penal sanctions to legislation which in its pith and substance is legislation in relation to that subject in its provincial aspects alone.
That is the point which it seems to me should be in the minds of hon. members when they consider this aspect of the problem; that it is the pith and substance of the legislation, the pith and substance of the subject matter before the house, which must be considered in deciding whether this is in fact within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada or whether, under the British North America Act, it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures and their governments.
When this came before the privy council section 14 was not actually dealt with. But there is one statement in the judgment of the privy council that I would like to read, because it follows these thoughts. It is this:
The basis of that decision is that there is no other criterion of "wrongness" than the intention of the legislature in the public interest to prohibit the act or omission made criminal.
That is one quotation I wanted to read. The other quotation from the judgment of the privy council is this:
The only limitation on the plenary power of the dominion to determine what shall or shall not be criminal is the condition that parliament shall not

Combines Investigation Act
in the guise of enacting criminal legislation in truth and in substance encroach on any of the classes of subjects enumerated in section 92.
I have placed on the record those short quotations from the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada and the privy council. I should like to correct one statement. I said they had not dealt with section 14, but it was really dealing with the question of an appeal in connection with section 498A, both to the Supreme Court of Canada and to the privy council.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if my hon. friend
would read at the conclusion of the sentence that he finished the very next sentence. I think that will clarify his point.


George Alexander Drew: I am going to read exactly
what I have chosen to read and the Minister of Justice can read any part he sees fit. They are extensive judgments and I do not intend to read them into the record in their entirety.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Just the one sentence.


George Alexander Drew: If the Minister of Justice
wishes to read any part afterward I shall be happy to have him do so. I do wish to correct the record in that respect, that the privy council judgment I was referring to was a judgment in regard to section 498A of the Criminal Code. The other reference was in relation to the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act which was passed in 1935 and which was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada to express its opinion as to the constitutionality of the act.
I should like to quote from the judgment of Chief Justice Duff. He was dealing with the arrangement for the approval of agreements in relation to prices and other arrangements of the very kind we are discussing now, along with other arrangements in industry or commerce, and he had this to say:
As to section 14, we cannot perceive any ground for holding that the enactments of this section are necessarily incidental to the exercise of any powers of the dominion in relation to the criminal law. Nor can the section, we think, be sustained as legislation in relation to the regulation of trade and commerce consistently with the passage quoted from the judgment of the judicial committee in Snider's case (1), in the reasons given in the judgment upon the reference concerning the Natural Products Marketing Act. It is to be observed that this section contemplates action by the commission and by the governor in council in respect of individual agreements which may relate to trade that is entirely local.
If confined to external trade and interprovincial trade, the section might well be competent under head No. 2 of section 91; and if the legislation were in substance concerned with such trade, incidental legislation in relation to local trade necessary in order to prevent the defeat of competent provisions might also be competent; but as it stands, we think this section is invalid.
That judgment refers to a section which would have permitted, in cases where it was

demonstrably in the public interest that such agreements should be permitted, agreements of the very nature which would be prohibited by the legislation now before us. That being so, I think the question naturally arises as to whether we should not have a great deal more information before us when we are called upon to pass a bill of this kind, when the possibility is raised that it might be ultra vires.
I do want to deal with one other aspect of this problem. There has been a very general impression that the parliament of Canada could declare almost anything a criminal offence, and that the courts were almost bound to accept the declaration by parliament that an act might be a criminal offence. I question if sufficient attention has yet been paid to the grounds upon which the privy council dealt with the margarine case as recently as earlier this year, at the time they had before them an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. I submit that the case to which I have referred and Which is described as "in re a reference as to the validity of section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, chapter 45. Canadian Federation of Agriculture, appellants; and Attorney General for Quebec and others, respondents" indicates that there have been very real limitations placed upon the authority of this parliament to declare any act to be a criminal act. I wish to quote from that judgment which is reported in Law Reports, Appeal Cases, 1951, 179, at pages 181 and 182, as follows:
The first main submission is that s. 5 (a) of the Dairy Industry Act is legislation in relation to "the regulation of trade and commerce" and therefore validly enacted under head 2 of s. 91 of the British North America Act, 1867. Secondly, s. 5 (a) and the appropriate penal provision in s. 10 of the act, is legislation in relation to "the criminal law" under s. 91, head 27, of the act of 1867. Thirdly, s. 5 (a) is a law in relation to a matter not coming within the classes of subjects assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces, and is therefore within the residuary power conferred by the opening words of s. 91.
I pass to page 196 of the judgment of the privy council, and I should like to read into the record several paragraphs of this judgment because it seems to me they place this whole subject on a different basis. I feel that they should be before the members of this house who are called upon to pass judgment on whether or not the parliament of Canada is going to assume responsibility for a measure that may conceivably be beyond our jurisdiction. I start to quote at page 196 of the judgment of the privy council, as follows:
Their lordships' views on this branch of the case may be happily stated by a quotation from the judgments of the majority in the supreme court.

Rand, J., said (83) : "That object (i.e., the object of prohibition), as I must find it, is economic and the legislative purpose, to give trade protection to the dairy industry in the production of and sale of butter; to benefit one group of persons as against competitors in business in which, in the absence of the legislation, the latter would be free to engage in the provinces. To forbid manufacture and sale for such an end is prima facie to deal directly with the civil rights of individuals in relation to particular trade within the provinces; Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy Board (84). The public interest in this regulation lies obviously in the trade effects: it is annexed to the legislative subject matter and follows the latter in its allocation to the one or other legislature. But to use it as a support for the legislation in the aspect of criminal law would mean that the dominion under its authority in that field, by forbidding the manufacture or sale of particular products, could, in what it considered a sound trade policy, not only interdict a substantial part of the economic life of one section of Canada, but do so for the benefit of that of another. Whatever the scope of the regulation of interprovincial trade, it is hard to conceive of a more insidious form of encroachment on a contemporary jurisdiction. This conclusion is not in conflict with Attorney General for British Columbia v. Attorney General for Canada (85). (Section 498A of the Criminal Code.) There, the essential nature of the legislation was not the equalization of civil rights between competitors or promoting the interest of one trade as against another; it was the safeguarding of the public against the evil consequences of certain fetters upon free and equal competition. There is no like purpose here; there is nothing of a general or injurious nature to be abolished or removed; it is a matter of preferring certain local trade to others."
With these observations their lordships entirely agree, and they are fatal to counsel's second argument in support of the appeal. That argument would have had more weight if it had been possible to contend that the object of the prohibition was to exclude from Canada substances injurious to health. In support of their third argument, counsel relied principally on Russell v. Regina (86), and the recent case of Attorney General for Ontario v. Canada Temperance Federation (87), in which Russell's case (86), not for the first time, was considered and commented upon. In the latter case Viscount Simon, in delivering the judgment of the board, said (88) :
"In their lordships' opinion, the true test must be found in the real subject matter of the legislation:	If it is such that it goes beyond local or
provincial concern or interests and must from its inherent nature be the concern of the dominion as a whole (as, for example, in the Aeronautics case (89) and the Radio case (90)), then it will fall within the competence of the dominion parliament as a matter affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada, though it may in another aspect touch on matters specially reserved to the provincial legislatures. War and pestilence, no doubt, are instances: so, too, may be the drink or drug traffic, or the carrying of arms.
In Russell v. Regina (86), Sir Montague Smith gave as an instance of valid dominion legislation a law which prohibited or restricted the sale or exposure of cattle having a contagious disease. Nor is the validity of the legislation, when due to its inherent nature, affected because there may still be room for enactments by a provincial legislature dealing with an aspect of the same subject in so far as it specially affects that province." This passage must, however, be considered with the words used by Lord Atkin when delivering the judgment of the board in the Labour conventions case (91): "But the validity of the legislation under the general words of section 91 was sought to be established not in relation to the treaty-making
Combines Investigation Act power alone, but also as being concerned with matters of such general importance as to have attained 'such dimensions as to affect' the body politic, and to have 'ceased to be merely local or provincial', and to have 'become a matter of national concern'. It is interesting to notice how often the words used by Lord Watson in Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for the dominion (92) have unsuccessfully been used in attempts to support encroachments on the provincial legislative powers given by section 92. They laid down no principle of constitutional law, and were cautious words intended to safeguard possible eventualities which no one at the time had any interest or desire to define. The law of Canada on this branch of constitutional law has been stated with such force and clarity by the Chief Justice in his judgment in the reference concerning the Natural Products Marketing Act (93) dealing with the six acts there referred to, that their lordships abstained from stating it afresh. The Chief Justice, naturally from his point of view, excepted legislation to fulfil treaties. On this their lordships have expressed their opinion. But subject to this, they agree with and adopt what was there said. They consider that the law is finally settled by the current of cases cited by the Chief Justice on the principles declared by him.
It is only necessary to call attention to the phrases in the various cases, "abnormal circumstances", "exceptional conditions", "standard of necessity", (Board of Commerce case (94)), "seme extraordinary peril to the national life of Canada", "highly exceptional", "epidemic of pestilence", (Snider's case (95)), to show how far the present case is from the conditions which may override the normal distribution of powers in sections 91 and 92. The few pages of the chief justice's judgment will, it is to be hoped, form the locus classicus of the law on this point, and preclude further disputes." Their lordships think it sufficient to say, in answer to this third argument, that the prohibition now under consideration relates to civil rights within each of the provinces and that neither the facts set out in the order of reference, nor any other fact of which their lordships could take judicial notice, lead to the conclusion that there exists in the present case the conditions which may override the normal distribution of powers in sections 91 and 92.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) feels I have not read sufficient of that judgment I shall be very pleased if he will extend the quotation.


An hon. Member:: Read it all.


George Alexander Drew: But I would point out that this judgment has emphasized and re-emphasized that it is not only the safeguarding of the public interest that has to be borne in mind; that it is not merely a question of removing certain fetters upon free and equal competition, but that there must be some suggestion of a criminal aspect to the conduct which is under consideration. The judgments referred to with approval by the privy council have pointed out that where this principle has been supported it has not been under any loose doctrine that the parliament of Canada may declare anything to be criminal, but that it is something that relates to abnormal circumstances, exceptional conditions, that there is some great necessity, that there is extraordinary peril to the national life of Canada, that

Combines Investigation Act there is some epidemic or pestilence or something of that kind which must be dealt with.
These are the standards of emergency. These are the standards which are supposed to apply before this high court of parliament assumes the responsibility of declaring an act to be criminal. I am not presuming to place before this high court of parliament any dogmatic contention that the bill is necessarily ultra vires. Every lawyer who has been before our courts, every lawyer who has had such a wide experience in matters of this kind as the Prime Minister of Canada in his practice in earlier days, knows that even lawyers of the widest experience have on occasion found with surprise that the judges did not agree with the opinion they had originally expressed. I fancy that the Prime Minister, looking back over his years of experience, is not unique, and that he can perhaps recall cases where the court came to conclusions which were not entirely in line with the view he had originally expressed in regard to a subject of this kind. The fact that there is the possibility of such wide disagreement among highly trained legal minds is evidenced by the disagreement in the cases to which I have referred. I may say that not the present Prime Minister alone will recall that fact, because there is another member of this house who will recall, as a matter of family interest, the fact that there was a disagreement between the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the reference which had been placed before them on this subject.
There are great differences of opinion, and the balance sometimes goes one way and sometimes another. There are discernible trends in the judgments that are given. Sometimes one may detect a trend going on for a long time in one particular direction, and then the trend seems to go the other way. It may well be that at this time the trend of the judgments is to return to the original concept of confederation in which the rights conferred upon provincial legislatures were, in fact, to be exercised by provincial legislatures, and that the devices which were employed on so many occasions to override provincial jurisdiction should not be supported by the courts.
Believing as I do that the strength and unity of this country will depend upon a recognition of that distribution of power which was originally intended by those who drafted our federal constitution, I would hope that the tendency of our own Supreme Court of Canada would be in that direction. If it is, it may well be that the Supreme Court of Canada would hold that this subject matter now before us is the same subject

matter that was before the house at an earlier time when this house passed the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, which included section 14 that was declared to be ultra vires because the subject matter of that section was beyond the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. I submit the court may well decide that if the subject matter was neither trade and commerce nor criminal law and it was not competent for parliament to pass that section with its permissive authority, then it is no more competent for this parliament to pass a section which follows a strictly negative course and places an overriding prohibition on all transactions of this nature.
Where is the criminal offence? We still have not been told. It has been suggested that this is not a desirable practice. It has been suggested by at least one member on the other side that this is something in the nature of a reaffirmation of historic Liberalism. I hope it is not the same kind of reaffirmation which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) placed before us when he introduced the amendments to the Public Works Act a few days ago. However, the Minister of Public Works must accept some responsibility for our pertinacity in continuing this debate, because we were successful in convincing him that it was desirable to change certain of the provisions in that bill. With that example before us, we still hope the government may recognize that there are reasons why this legislation should not be passed.
Mr. Speaker, we have not yet been told who the criminals are. There have been these statements about the friends of big business. I know there have been speeches about the desire to protect the manufacturer; but I recall that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) did#not give us examples of excessive profits by manufacturers. He gave us examples of what he regarded to be excessive write-ups between the price at which the manufacturer sold the article and the price at which the merchant sold it. I gather from this that he regards the merchant as the criminal in this case. Since that is the only thing he has put before us that by any stretch of the imagination can be suggested as supporting evidence for what he is doing, that is the only interpretation I can place upon it. I suggest that in so far as the responsibility of this high court of parliament is concerned, in declaring that this long established practice is in the nature of a criminal act we would be doing something very much like the communist government of east Germany did two days ago.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh,
oh.


George Alexander Drew: I hear one of the Liberal
members to the right making sounds that I cannot quite diagnose. It may be that it is so close to Christmas he is still suffering some pain. I would suggest that the hon. member make more intelligible sounds, and I shall attempt to deal with them.
I was simply pointing to the fact that I heard with interest over the radio that the government of east Germany had declared it a criminal offence to chew gum. It was declared to be a criminal offence because it was not regarded as being in keeping with the high purposes of the government of east Germany that they should permit the people to follow this American practice, as they described it. I am only referring to this fact to point out that it has been our habit to be sure there is some criminal nature to the act before we declare something to be criminal. If it is merely a commercial transaction then we should not, under the guise of dealing with criminal law, try to prevent something that can be prevented in some other way. Mr. Justice Rand, in the judgment in the margarine case which was quoted with approval by the privy council, made it quite clear that where the subject matter is really commercial law or relates to commercial practices, it cannot become a criminal offence by simply declaring it to be criminal. We are still left with the fact that the only reason even suggested so far for the haste with which this is being put forward is to be found on the advertising pages of the newspapers which are appearing now. Here I see an advertisement, for instance, in yesterday's Toronto Telegram:	"Simpsons
Annual Fashion Clearance", and below that a great number of articles listed for sale, a number of them at half price. Then on another page of the Toronto Telegram I see: "Eatons Thursday After-Christmas Clearances". There again I see one subheading which reads, "Reduced 20 per cent to 33 J per cent", and I see another subheading which reads, "Reduced One-Third to One-Half".


Jean-François Pouliot: Is that ladies' wear or men's wear?


George Alexander Drew: Just so there may be no suggestion that it is only in the case of these larger businesses that reductions are already being advertised, may I say that in my own mail I received an announcement of a footwear sale advertising a discount of 25 per cent. So it goes. But mark this fact. The advertisements are quite clear; they are annual sales, they have been annual sales and they will doubtless continue to be annual
Combines Investigation Act sales. But the haste, of course, is to try to identify this legislation in some way with sales that are already under way.


Sarto Fournier: What is your opinion about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Earl Rowe: Your policy is too late.


George Alexander Drew: I notice that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) this afternoon said: "What is worrying the leader of the opposition is that in addition to lower prices in January and February they may continue to drop." No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what is worrying me, and that is not what is worrying anyone else in this party. We have been urging that the government take steps which would make it certain that prices would drop. We have pointed out that one step they could have taken at any time during this session, and still could, would be to introduce appropriate legislation to remove the 25 per cent increase in the sales tax passed earlier this year, to remove the unnecessary excise taxes that were imposed earlier this year, and to reduce the increases in other taxes which are building up the surplus that is mounting month by month.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not eliminate all taxes?


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no. It is not a case of eliminating all taxes; but it is quite clear that a great many taxes could have been eliminated in the public interest and still keep the revenue within the budget that was passed by this house, and actually keep the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) within his duty to this parliament which only authorized him to raise the amount set out in his budget.


Mr. Bradette:: What about Ontario? A surplus is all right there.


George Alexander Drew: There is a vast difference between suggesting that there be no taxes at all and) suggesting that the government could well remove those taxes which have built up the huge surplus which has proved to be so unnecessary.
I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that it is not possible for anyone either on this side of the house or on the other side to say there can be no chance that the Supreme Court of Canada would not declare that this legislation is outside the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. This law which would make a criminal offence of practices that have been accepted for generations certainly should not be put into effect if there is the slightest possibility that later it may be upset; because it would be a difficult thing to unscramble the omelet which had been cooked

Combines Investigation Act by legislation of this kind. There is one way that situation can be avoided. It is a method that has found approval by this government and by some of those now sitting in this house. That method is to refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is what Mr. King urged with regard to measures that were passed some years ago.


An hon. Member:: And received a lot of criticism.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, when one of the ministers cannot even find his own seat in the house, perhaps it is not necessary to take too seriously the comments he is making.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this legislation not only is similar to legislation that was before the house at the time Mr. King so strongly advocated reference to the courts; it in fact deals with precisely the same subject matter as that dealt with in one act which Mr. King said should go before the courts; and when he came to power in 1935 that was the course he followed. I would therefore think this: course is one Which should find acceptance by those who followed for so long his guidance in regard to constitutional matters. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe):
That Bill No. 36 be not now read the second time but that its further consideration be deferred until the constitutionality thereof has been submitted to and approved by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) requires, I submit, something more substantial to support it than the legal opinions with which he has been regaling the members of the house for the past three-quarters of an hour. During the course of his remarks he asked me whether the Department of Justice or the combines branch thereof had received any opinion from any lawyer to the effect that the legislation now before the house was beyond the powers of this parliament to pass. My answer was that we had received no such opinion. I think, however, that you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this house are quite entitled to assume-and I am sure that you properly do assume-that when the government introduces a measure of this kind the necessary precautions are taken, as a matter of routine, to make as sure as we can that any legislation which is submitted by the government is within the power of parliament. We would certainly be derelict in our duty if we were to bring into this house legislation which, in the opinion of the law officers of the crown, was beyond the power


of the house to pass. I may say that in the present instance the law officers of the crown entertain no doubt whatever as to the constitutionality of the bill which is now before hon. members.
If I may, I should like to make one or two observations with regard to the argument which has just been presented by the leader of the opposition. Inasmuch as we had no reason to suppose that this bill would be attacked upon the grounds on which he has just chosen to attack it, I shall have to deal with his remarks on rising immediately after he has finished making them, and therefore I may not take up every single point which he has made. I must say that with some of the points he has made I am in agreement, but with many others I am in profound disagreement. He says he thinks it is necessary that an act to be proscribed by legislation of the character that is now before us should be criminal in character. Well, I should be very curious to know as to whether he thinks that section-


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but, Mr. Speaker, I would! point out that the motion has not yet been read to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I should have read it, but the minister rose before I had an opportunity to do so. Mr. Drew moves, seconded by Mr. Rowe:
That Bill No. 36 be not now read the second time but that its further consideration be deferred until the constitutionality thereof has been submitted to and approved by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was saying, Mr. Speaker,
that I was curious to know what opinion my hon. friend would entertain of section 498A of the Criminal Code which, as he will recall, was enacted by the Bennett government in 1935, if I remember rightly. The first part of that section reads as follows:
Every person engaged in trade or commerce or industry who
(a) is a party or privy to, or assists in, any transaction of sale which discriminates, to his knowledge, against competitors of the purchaser in that any discount, rebate or allowance is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate or allowance available at the time of such transaction to the aforesaid competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like quality and quantity-
-is guilty of an indictable offence, and so on. I suggest to my hon. friend, and I think upon reflection he will probably agree, that section 498A (a) which I have just read deals with a matter which but for section 498A (a) would be a commercial transaction lawfully within the power of those who took part in it. Thus that section, 498A, as my hon. friend himself has indicated, has

been the subject matter of a reference to determine its constitutionality. The case went before the Supreme Court of Canada, and the section was there held to be intra vires of parliament, with Justices Cannon and Crockett dissenting. Then it went from the Supreme Court of Canada to the privy council where it was held as reported in 1937, 1 Western Weekly Reports at page 319, and I quote this particularly because my hon. friend's quotation came to an abrupt stop at the very moment when he was beginning to get warm and come to the real point.


James Sinclair: How typical.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend quoted this:
The only limitation on the plenary power of the dominion to determine what shall or shall not be criminal is the condition that parliament shall not in the guise of enacting criminal legislation in truth and in substance encroach on any of the classes of subjects enumerated in section 92.
That is, as coming within provincial jurisdiction. At that particular point my hon. friend came to an abrupt stop. The next sentence is this:
It is no objection that it does in fact affect them. If a genuine attempt to amend the criminal law, it may obviously affect previously existing civil rights. The object of an amendment-
And: I commend this particularly to my hon. friend.
The object of an amendment of the criminal law as a rule is to deprive the citizen of the right to do that which apart from the amendment he could lawfully do.
In other words, as applied to section 498A, here is a commercial transaction previously engaged in with perfect legality. Parliament comes along and by section 498A says: This much you previously did. You no longer can do it by reason of the enactment of this section.
Their Lordships go on further in their judgment to say this:
In the present case there seems to be no reason for supposing that the dominion are using the criminal law as a pretence or pretext or that the legislature is in pith and substance only interfering with civil rights in the province. Counsel for New Brunswick called the attention of the board to the report of the royal commission on price spreads, which is referred to in the order of reference. It probably would not be contended that the statement of the minister in the order of reference that the section was enacted to give effect to the recommendations of the royal commission bound the provinces or must necessarily be treated as conclusive by the board. But when the suggestion is made that the legislation was not in truth criminal legislation, but was in substance merely an encroachment on the provincial field, the existence of the report appears to be a material circumstance.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is this parallel between the constitutionality of section 498A of the Criminal Code and the validity of the legislation which is now before 94699-155
Combines Investigation Act us; that, as was referred to in this selection which I have just quoted, section 498A was preceded by a report of the royal commission on price spreads which was referred to in the order of reference, and that the legislation we have here covers the specific recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee. Therefore it would seem to the law officers of the crown that the constitutionality of section 37A, which is the operative portion of the present legislation, would appear to depend upon the same considerations that determined the constitutional validity of section 498A, and that there is not much doubt about it at all, certainly there is not sufficient doubt about it to warrant the course which is recommended in the present amendment before the house, namely, that we should go no further but should refer the matter to the courts to determine whether we are acting within the powers of parliament.
In the course of his discussion my hon. friend went on to say that he was somewhat disturbed by other cases which had been decided, notably the one dealing with section 14 of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act. Perhaps the following selection from the judgment of Chief Justice Sir Lyman Duff might dispel some of the doubts that he entertained. Chief Justice Sir Lyman Duff said this:
As to section 14, we cannot perceive any ground for holding that the enactments of this section are necessarily incidental to the exercise of any powers of the dominion in relation to the criminal law. Nor can the section, we think, be sustained as legislation in relation to the regulation of trade and commerce consistently with the passage quoted from the judgment of the judicial committee in Snider's case (1), in the reasons given in the judgment upon the reference concerning the Natural Products Marketing Act. It is to be observed that this section contemplates action by the commission and by the governor in council in respect of individual agreements which may relate to trade that is entirely local.
That is not interprovincial or international trade, but trade wholly within a province. Then his lordship the chief justice goes on to say:
If confined to external trade and interprovincial trade, the section might well be competent under head No. 2 of section 91; and if the legislation were in substance concerned with such trade, incidental legislation in relation to local trade necessary in order to prevent the defeat of competent provisions might also be competent; but as it stands, we think this section is invalid.
Another case which apparently gave my hon. friend considerable mental anxiety, which he wishes to invoke as a basis for the amendment he has moved, was the judgment of the privy council in the margarine case. In that connection I should like to read some of the same selections from the privy council judgment that were read by my hon.

Combines Investigation Act friend; but, for some reason or other, I take a different meaning from them than he took.
The real point at issue in that case, I submit, was that in pith and substance, it was a law for the protection and encouragement of the dairy industry in Canada. And in the course of dealing with it their lordships of the privy council referred with approval to the judgment of Mr. Justice Rand, who had found that the object of the prohibition was economic, and the legislative purpose thereof was-and this is the nub of the matter, I suggest-to give trade protection to the dairy industry in the production and sale of butter. And then I quote from Mr. Justice Rand these words: "To benefit one group of persons as against competitors in business in which, in the absence of the legislation, the latter would be free to engage in the provinces." In other words it was distinguishing as between the civil rights of one group of people and the civil rights of another group of people. Again their lordships quote Mr. Justice Rand as follows:
"But to use it"-
And they are referring to the public interest in the regulation.
-"as a support lor the legislation in the aspect of criminal law would mean that the dominion under its authority in that field, by forbidding the manufacture or sale of particular products, could, in what it considered a sound trade policy, not only interdict a substantial part of the economic life of one section of Canada, but do so for the benefit of that of another."
And that is the point. Then their lordships again quote Mr. Justice Rand, and they are now referring, in the course of the discussion of this margarine case, to section 498A of the Criminal Code:
There the essential nature of the legislation was not the equalization of civil rights between competitors or promoting the interest of one grade as against another: it was the safeguarding of the public against the evil consequences of certain fetters upon free and equal competition.
I would like to know what the purpose of the legislation before this house is, if it is not the safeguarding of the public against the evil consequences of certain fetters upon free and equal competition, namely resale price maintenance.
And as their lordships went on to further quote Mr. Justice Rand in the margarine case:
There is no like purpose here; there is nothing of a general or injurious nature to be abolished or removed; it is a matter of preferring certain local trade to others.
In my view it was upon that basis that the legislation in question was held to be ultra vires. I might say therefore in conclusion that not a single principle my hon. 
friend has sought to establish in his lengthy	
remarks offers a	proper foundation for the
amendment he has moved.	
The house divided on the amendment (Mr.	
Drew) which was negatived on the following division:
 YEAS Messrs:	
Adamson	Gibson
Aylesworth	Graydon
Balcer	Hees
Blair	Hodgson
Brooks	Lennard
Casselman	Macdonnell (Greenwood)
Catherwood	McLure
Churchill	Nowlan
Courtemanche	Ross (Souris)
Coyle	Rowe
Diefenbaker	Tustin
Drew	White (Middlesex East)
Fairclough, Mrs. Fraser	-26.
 NAYS Messrs:
Abbott	Gauthier (Lapointe)
Anderson	Gauthier (Portneuf)
Arsenault	George
Balcom	Gingras
Bater	Gingues
Beyerstein	Gour (Russell)
Blanchette	Gregg
Blue	Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Boisvert	Harrison
Boivin	Healy
Bonnier	Hellyer
Boucher	Helme
Bradette	Henderson
Breithaupt	Henry
Breton	Herridge
Brisson	Hetland
Brown (Essex West)	Hosking
Bruneau	Howe
Bryce	Huffman
Cameron	James
Cannon	Jeffery
Cauchon	Jones
Cavers	Jutras
Chevrier	Kickham
Clark	Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Cleaver	Knight
Cloutier	Lafontaine
Coldwell	Laing
Corry	Langlois (Berthier-
Cote (St. Jean-Iberville- Maskinonge)	
Napierville)	Langlois (Gaspe)
Cote (Verdun-La Salle) Leduc	
Cournoyer	Lefrancois
Darroch	Lesage
Dechene	Little
Demers	Macdonald (Edmonton
Denis	East)
Dion	MacKenzie
Dube	MacNaught
Dumas	Macnaughton
Eyre	McCann
Fair	McCubbin
Ferrie	McCusker
Fontaine	McDonald (Parry Sound-
Fournier (Hull)	Muskoka)
Fulford	Mcllraith
Gardiner	Mclvor
Garland	McLean (Huron-Perth)
Garson	McMillan
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Major	

Maltais
Martin
Masse
Monette
Mutch
Nadon
Nixon
Noseworthy
Parent
Picard
Pinard
Proudfoot
Prudham
Ratelle
Richard (Gloucester) Richard (Ottawa East) Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Riley
Rinfret
Roberge
Robertson
Robinson
Rochefort
Rooney
St. Laurent
Sinclair
Sinnott
Smith (York North)
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Stuart (Charlotte)
Tremblay
Valois
Ward
Weir
Welbourn
Whiteside
Whitman
Winkler
Winters
Wood
Wright-137.


William Joseph Browne: I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Combines Investigation Act


Mr. Black (Chaleauguay-Huniingdon-La-prairie):: I was paired1. Had1 I votedl, I would have voted against the amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
On motion of Mr. Chevrier the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will proceed with this debate and then take up all other legislation. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs is here we will take up his resolution first.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
2439
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 28, 1951